CCMIN082295 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Roush stated that the developer's concerns are the routes the heavy construction trucks will face. The developer has never brought up any concerns about the street being closed while the barrier is constructed. Woody Perriera, representing the developer (Shapell), felt the decision to open the street belonged in Council's hands. The public improvements were completed two months ago and he did not want to get entangled in the Mirador issue. It was moved by Ms. Dennis, and seconded by Mr. Pico, that the public improvements for Tracts 6483 and 6518 be accepted but that Mirador Drive remain closed until the barrier is constructed. The roll call vote was as follows: AYBS: Councilmembers Dennis, Pico, and Mayor Tarver NOES: Councilmember Michelotti and Mohr ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Item 5c Pronosed Cooperative Planning, Process for the San Francisco Water Department - Bernal Avenue Site. (SR95:282) Ms. Acosta stated Council wanted to see an option that would broaden the scope of the review. The Joint Planning Process does discuss starting from a plan that has been submitted by the City and County of San Francisco to the County of Alameda. It was suggested that the initial step of the process might involve the Committee of Decision Makers meeting before staff would meet. Staff has also suggested that Council might want to consider calling the decision makers together to see if the final document could be negotiated among themselves. She continued, the suggested format of the Committee's meeting would be open to the public, televised, and held in the City of Pleasanton. There was a question about what happens to the Specific Plan if approved, and whether the City should add some language that would require voter approval and whether that language will be accepted by the other parties. A chronology of the actions that has taken place was included with the staff report. A thorough fiscal analysis has been requested of the project as presented by the City and County of San Francisco. Two fiscal documents were received by the County but has not been seen by staff. The Council might want to hire a consultant to go into the reports in depth. A comment has been made regarding the City buying the property and the staff report describes the financing options if this were pursued. Since the $100 million figure has been mentioned, financing for such a figure over thirty years would cost approximately eight million dollars per year or $240 million. The annual taxpayer cost on a general obligation bond for a house value of one hundred thousand would be $120 a year for thirty years and if a house value was five hundred thousand it would cost $600 a year. The Planning Department has cancelled the County Planning 08/22/95 -7-