CCMIN121195 - Laserfiche WebLink

project goes through the County. Her viewpoint is that the number of housing units will be less than 1,600; the market will make the plan like Pleasanton. She feels affordable housing and some high density housing elements are needed in Pleasanton. She hopes the project will go forward with a win-win solution. Regarding the question of the City purchasing land along Bernal, she advised that she always wanted the view shed preserved, she wanted the golf course to wrap around, and sees a hotel as an amenity to the golf course. She does not want all commercial/r~tail/office along Bernal. Ms. Michelotti advised that back in the early '80's, this land was put in a ten-year reserve, and since that time, this parcel was always referenced when affordable housing, a cultural arts center, and a community park were discussed. But what ar~ the Wade-offs to get these wanted amenities? Ms. Michelotti feels the plan is not a bad plan because it will provide open space, view sheds, etc. She asked the planners from San Francisco to work in earnest within the time frame and get some of the details worked out. Ms. Michelotti also asked for more citizens to state their feelings regarding the City's purchase of the 20 acres along Bernal. She wants to know the citizens' views on having an additional amount to pay on their yearly tax bills. In conclusion, Ms. Michelotti advised that she really wants this project to come to Pleasanton so that we can have control over it. Councilmember Pico did not think that the proposed plan is one that will be acceptable to the citizens of Pleasanton. He came to the process to work for the very best plan, working cooperatively with San Francisco, Alameda County, and Pleasanton. He hoped that by the final meeting, staff will be able to work Wgether to incorporate the concerns expressed tonight, such that the plan will be acceptable to the City. Councilmember Mohr left the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Item 6a Review of Business Sector Park Obligation and Community Park Ootions (SR 95:419) Mr. Swift presented the staff report. Mayor Tarver asked if the intent of the motion on December 5th was that the City would not look at park obligations for future CIIIO projects as a condition of approval. If that was the intent of the motion, then Mayor Tarvet erred in his vote. He believed the point of the meeting was to say that existing businesses would not be assessed any new fee, tax, bond or other revenue source. However, if San Francisco puts a commercial office park in its development, it should have the same condition as on other business parks. Mr. Roush advised that the intent of the motion was that there would not be any new fee or tax on existing businesses as well as on property that would develop in the future. If that was not Mayor Tarver's intent, then a reconsideration is in order. 12/11/95 - 10 - City Council Minutes