CCMIN110999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Tarver referred to the concern that the EIR will get stale and there will be no action on the project. Council has said it will move it to its logical conclusion. He appreciated being given the time to negotiate on the sale of the property in November and December. Mr. Lymbum felt Mayor Brown's letter speaks for itself. San Francisco wants a vote on the project after the vote on the decision to purchase. If that is not until November 2000, then it would be 2001 before the project could be on the ballot. Mayor BrowTx believes that if there is the political will and leadership, it is possible to accomplish this. Ms. Michelotti felt the first thing to do is to determine whether a general obligation bond can be approved at a special election. She reminded everyone that a two- thirds vote is difficult to achieve and she wanted as much information as possible for the voters. Mr. Lymbum believed that even waiting until June would not be enough time to get a detailed land plan. Mayor Tarver did not think it was necessary to have as detailed a plan as was prepared by San Francisco. What is important is to understand the funding mechanisms, the acceptable and needed uses and whether those uses justify the level of funding necessary to buy the property. We need time to talk about uses and what is important to the citizens, such as lighted sports fields, a high school, an ACE station downtown, flood control on the arroyo for Zone 7, Castlewood golf course stabilization, etc. Mr. Lymburn did not believe it was necessary to go over the project at this meeting, but would like to hear what the public had to say and to answer any questions about the project or the sale. Ms. Acosta indicated staff has been working on the negotiations and gathering information from the financial advisors regarding possible funding mechanisms for purchasing the property. There is also the question of whether to purchase all or a majority of the property. Mr. Lymbum referred to the Planning Commission decisions and felt they were more detrimental to the project than expected. Some proposals were acceptable, but others were directly contrary to the Agreements in Principle. In negotiating the Agreements in Principle, three elements have been part of the balance: a project that the community could accept and contain things it needs; a project that was economically viable; and realization of value for the City and County of San Francisco. The Planning Commission proposed changes that he wanted to discuss with the Council, such as a tradeoff of density reduction for growth management. It was a surprise that the Planning Commission went as far as it did and basically destroyed the balance. He was eager to hear from the Councilmembers about the actions of the Planning Commission. Pleasanton City Council 18 11/09/99 Minutes