Laserfiche WebLink
181 <br />AYES: Councilmembers B~tler, Mercer, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Brandes <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br /> <br />Parcel 2G - East Bay Regional Park District <br /> No one in the audience spoke on this item. <br /> <br /> Council took action earlier designating this entire area within the <br />specific plan designation. <br /> <br />Parcel 3 - Mozart <br /> Councilmember Mohr requested that a Public and Institutional designation <br />indicating a BART parking lot be added to the existing general plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Joseph Madden, 1544 Santa Rita Road, stated the Transportation Subcom- <br />mittee of the Chamber of Commerce, sent a letter this date to the BART people <br />suggesting that a comparative study be made of the so-called Stoneridge site <br />versus a site in Hacienda for several reasons: the major portion of the <br />population is east of the 680 Freeway, the SP right-of-way that goes to Walnut <br />Creek which has the potential of being a mass transit corridor, and the <br />planned road system in the Hacienda area is far superior to that area. He <br />urged Council to be hesitant about designating a BART station and parking lot <br />at this time unless convinced this is the precise location for the BART <br />facilities. He stated he was not sure this is the best site for Pleasanton or <br />the Valley for a BART station and parking lot. <br /> <br /> After discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Mercer, and seconded by <br />Councilmember Butler, that Parcel 3 - Mozart be designated 70.0 acres commer- <br />cial and offices; 20.0 acres high density residential, and 1.0'acres public <br />and institutional in the general plan. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Mercer, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Brandes <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br /> <br />Parcel 4 TMI <br /> Mayor Brandes stated that action was taken by Council on this item earlier <br />in the meeting. <br /> <br /> Mr.Don Rolph, Planner representing TMI, stated that the intended zoning <br />is the question, they have to have something to work for in the specific plan; <br />certain density, land uses, etc. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lee stated that staff's approach would be to show a tentative land use <br />designation on both parcels parcels within the TMI property as low density <br />residential with the understanding that staff would.work out all the different <br />issues, and other uses could conceivably be considered for adoption later on. <br /> <br />Parcels 5, 7, and 8 - San Francisco Water Department <br /> Mr. Martin Inderbitzen, 62 West Neal Street, representing City and County <br />of San Francisco, stated he has previously submitted written comments to Coun- <br />cil regarding this matter. He stated they are in agreement with the recommen- <br />ded general plan as submitted by the Planning Commission. The specific plan <br />designation on these parcels is consistent with the land use goals, policies, <br /> <br /> - 19 - 9-16-86 <br /> <br /> <br />