CCMIN121195 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Tarver's assessment of the public testimony is a desire for less density as to the residential units, a neo-traditional planning (small lots, small streets). He also would like to see neo-traditional planning for this parcel. Other public comments were that 1,100 units were acceptable. The City needs the four-month time to process this plan and would not want San Francisco "to cock the trigger" as leverage. He does not want that kind of relationship between the agencies. Other public comments were about view corridors. He has concern about putting the open space in the center of the parcel and all residential/commercial areas along the perimeter. The value of the views would be lost to the entire community. There must be a way to combine the golf course and the open space to allow the continuance of the views. He has concerns about the traffic and its mitigation, but that depends upon on the ultimate number of residential units developed. He would rather see a small shopping center rather than large strip malls. He is concerned about the use of the Open Space Fund. Regarding the golf course, Mayor Tarver advised that there is another golf course in the works, and if it does come to fruition, he would not want this golf course to compete with Pleasanton's municipal course. He finds the current proposal for growth management unacceptable. He does not mind working with San Francisco on growth management in future years, but has concern for adding 300 homes in 1997 and 1998. He likes the 'use it or lose it' philosophy, not the request to retain unused growth management. He corrected some previous statements of the public: there are 3,400 houses approved to be built over the next five to ten years; however, most of them are scheduled to be built in the next five years. He would like to see some public/institutional development in this project. Councilmember Dennis shares a lot of the same views as Mayor Tarvet, especially about the plan being the best plan to date. However, many things are distressing to her, particularly that a plan has not been achieved that will be supported by the residents. The analogy of "a gun to your head" is also very distressing to her. She needs to make an assessment of the Pleasanton residents in opposition to this plan to remove the referendum option which is coloring all discussions. In this ease, Ms. Dennis commented that the Council does not have the same amount of control when it disapproves a project and says "go back to the drawing board." This is a real dilemma to her. To scrap the plan means a great deal of work and does not mean any certainty of success. Councilmember Michelotti stated she is responsible for starting this process because if no one came together to come up with a consensus plan, how would the City ever know what people want. She commended everyone involved in that process. Personally, she would like to keep the land in hay production. Instead of fighting over the project at the County level and instead of the citizens banding together to get referendum signatures, she wanted to find a middle ground. She wanted to be honest with everyone and feels she represents a lot of citizens in the community. She does have concerns with the current plan, and is upset that the following day is the day for the ultimate decision because of all the concerns expressed tonight. She wants San Francisco to design a preferred plan that also meets with the approval of Pleasanton residents. She wants the opportunity to review and give input to the developer's plans and have the opportunity to request an extra park as a project amenity, etc. This control will not exist if the 12/11/95 - 9 - City Council Miuutes