CCMIN060496 - Laserfiche WebLink

how extensive the design guidelines will be and their scope. There has been discussion about whether they will be very narrow or very broad. His concern is how specific and where they will be applied. He understands there wffi be much discussion and public input on the definition. If the flexibility to respond to market conditions is not allowed, there will be a problem. At the moment, he cannot comment. If the guidelines start to deal with siting of buildings or exact layout details, there can be problems in being too restrictive. If design guidelines are adopted for this project, he believed the same guidelines should be applied to any civic project on the property to make sure it fits with the remainder of the project. He urged Council to phase consideration of the design guidelines with the plan as it develops to make sure everything works from an EIR perspective and other considerations. Obviously, some things will not be changed with analysis, but others, such as the Village Green, may be affected due to concerns about circulation, hnipero Avenue crossing, etc. He felt those design issues should be deferred until you know what the plan will actually be. Finally, San Francisco has spent a considerable amount of money in the cooperative planning process and will be spending more in the future separate and apart from the design guidelines. People should be aware of that and know San Francisco does want to pay its fair share. Ms. Mohr originally felt the other agreements should be in place before proceeding with the design guidelines, but now believes having the design guidelines in place before negotiating the development agreement would make it easier. Mr. Nelson felt time and resources should be spent on the big picture issues, but he has heard the desire to flesh out other issues in a parallel process. He was not opposed to that. If there is confidence on Council's part that the bigger issues can be resolved, he is not opposed to a parallel process, even though it is not his personal recommendation. Ms. Michelotti referred to the proposal in the Calthorpe letter to review the design options from San Francisco's golf course architect. She asked Mr. Nelson how much time would be involved in laying out those plans. Mr. Nelson indicated that now that there is conceptual agreement on a land use plan, they will proceed with further detailed plans. They will look at the layout and routing of the holes but not at the detail of bunkers, grading, etc. At this point, the review will be to make sure the routing is not in conflict with adjacent development, that there is appropriate fairway widths so there are no liability issues, and the water features will need to be reviewed. They still have to resolve issues with DSRSD regarding recycled water for irrigation. He indicated there are various levels of detail when planning a golf course and at first San Francisco just needs assurance there is enough property available to lay out a golf course that meets the functional needs of the course and still allows the development San Francisco needs. Ms. Michelotti indicated that as this process goes forward, there will be dialogue to resolve the issues, but how much specificity is necessary and in what areas will it be applied. 06/04/96 -10-