CCMIN080795 - Laserfiche WebLink

up then don't waste anymore time, just stand by their convictions. Housing does not pay its own way but is a drain on the community. He asked why is Pleasanton anxious to bring that property into the City. Robert Cordtz, 262 West Angela, suggested that Pleasanton lease the land from the City of San Francisco. If that didn't work, he suggested that Pleasanton buy the property. Cindy McGovern, 9206 Longview Drive, urged the Council to go ahead and begin the process with San Francisco and Alameda County so that Pleasanton can begin to get its voice heard. She would like to see more options for this land. She asked if anyone had approached San Francisco about buying the land if they were willing to sell, what kind of money would they be looking at. She urged Council to get involved in the process and use the recommendations from the General Plan Review Committee and compare it to the proposed plan which you just received. The community can see what kinds of decisions have to be made. If the property were annexed to Pleasanton, it would be a much less expensive development for San Francisco. Mayor Tarver stated that he had seen news articles that say San Francisco expected $100 million dollars for the property and that they also expected continual revenue. Gary Schwagerle, 189 West Angela Street, asked if there was a financial analysis on this project. Before discussing the amount of housing units and density, he would like to see the analysis of the land use for the General Plan. He wanted to know if this was an economically viable project. The Council might include lower cost, affordable single family housing in the $150,000 - $180,000 range. A1 Spotorno, PO Box 487, felt that the proposed number of homes for the San Francisco property is out of proportion. The Council should consider other options to buy, lease or float a bond to acquire title to this property. Charlotte Anderson, 7823 La Quinta Court, stated the public must be educated as to what is going on. She was there only because she received a flier in the mail plus the notice in the paper. She would hate to see the "City of Planned Progress" roll over and die because someone in San Francisco dictates what should be done here. Pleasanton needs to say that no matter how many hurdles it had to overcome, it will decide how that land will be developed. Debra Barker, 2947 Chardonnay Drive, stated she liked the idea of a final vote. She also felt the annexation process should be continued. Mayor Tarver stated that Council decided not to continue the annexation process because it would be viewed as an antagonistic action when we were trying to sit down and get a cooperative agreement. The annexation issue was set aside because it would be a "forced" process and probably end up in court, versus trying to get a joint process that would satisfy the community, Alameda County and San Francisco. 08107195 -9-