Laserfiche WebLink
105 <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer thankedMr. Agnos for coming to the Council meeting <br />and opening the discussion on the San Francisco property. He <br />stated that the City and County of San Francisco have done two good <br />things for Pleasanton: (1) the sale of a portion of the San <br />Francisco property for the Pleasanton Middle School; and (2) the <br />San Francisco staff worked with City staff to put a bike trail <br />system on the San Francisco property so that children could go more <br />safely to and from the Pleasanton Middle School. <br /> <br /> Mr. Doug Wright presented a brief history of the San Francisco <br />property and a prospectus of future. He explained that the <br />property has been owned by the Public Utilities Commission and the <br />San Francisco government for the past 60 years. He added that the <br />property's primary use was agricultural and that with the revision' <br />of the General Plan three years ago, the government of San <br />Francisco accepted to undertake the accomplishment of a specific <br />plan for the property. He stated that it is the intention of the <br />Public Utilities Commission, the City of San Francisco and the San <br />Francisco County Board of Supervisors to remain a partner in the <br />process and to retain ownership of the property to the extent <br />possible. <br /> <br /> Mr. Jeffrey Grote, President of Planning Collaborative and a <br />consultant to the project, stated that the site meets the primary <br />requisites of Pleasanton's General Plan and that the project would <br />provide a unique community development addition to the community. <br />He explained that the conceptual plan includes the design plan, <br />which comprises the physical elements, and the development plan, <br />which deals with the magnitude of the development. He offered to <br />answer any questions on the project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes stated that he was not opposed to the development <br />of the property but that it was premature to develop the property <br />at this time. He indicated that the citizens' committee process <br />would be appropriate for the project, as stated in Staff <br />Recommendation No. 4 of the Staff Report, but that it should not be <br />started until the Pleasanton Ridgelands Committee's work is <br />completed and its recommendations resolved on the ballot. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler commented that the citizens' committee process has <br />served well on major policy issues like the General Plan and the <br />Ridgelands, but that the specific plan process has served well on <br />other recent major developments in the City. He added that while <br />the property is large and its development would be an important <br />addition to the community, the proposal could be efficiently dealt <br />with on a level that would not involve too many people. He <br />proposed a combination of staff effort and a joint Planning <br />Commission and City Council work/study session to discuss the <br />proposal and to allow citizen participation. <br /> <br /> - 7 - <br /> 11-20-90 <br /> <br /> <br />