CCMIN080100 - Laserfiche WebLink

or do not want it. they have the choice to referend it. People could then put on the ballot in March the different choices for the property. Mayor Tamer felt that San Francisco would walk away from the table if Pleasanton does not get this ~naiized. If the citizens want to put things on the ballot, that is certainly their right. He felt that Pleasanton is taking a risk that San Francisco will go to Alameda County and process its plan. He said this is a very big risk we take if we do not entertain what is presently in front of Pleasanton. He wanted Pleasanton and the co~nmissions and the community to give Council all of the input they can to make this the best project for this piece of property. He said he truly believes that Pleasanton can get there if everyone works together in the next month to achieve this goal. Robert Byrd, 4650 Third Street, said a point of clarification is that he understood there to be a residential ceiling on the number of homes to be built in Pleasanton. He discussed how the plans would impact this number. Mr. Pico said Pleasanton has a cap that was approved by the voters of 29,000 residential units in the City of Pleasanton. To exceed that number, the City would have to go to the voters for their approval. There is nothing that says that Pleasanton has to reach that level or exceed that level. Ite also discussed the possibility of a golf course as part of this plan. He would like to see a little more thought put into the planning of the western portion of the property. Bob Nickeson, 4260 Pleasanton Avenue, asked about the deadline and whcther there was anything being considered to extend it. He asked if in the negotiations there could be some way in giving San Francisco money for extra time to work something out and thereby allow the community to give more input. He asked if any of this was a possibility. Mr. Tarver said it is possible to approach San Francisco with any proposal. They have an agreement with Greenbriar and that is where the issue is. Ms. Acosta said one of the earlier issues was exactly like this. It was proposed by Ponderosa Builders that they would pay San Francisco more money if a longer period of time was granted to work the plan through with Pleasanton. She doesn't know how that could be accomplished at this point in time. Ms. Ayala said that approach was one of the bids that San Francisco turned down. Mr. Tarver said it is consistent with what San Francisco has said all along. It wants money as quickly as it can get it and it wants as much as it can get. Ms. Ayala said there were several meetings coming up that she would encourage people to attend and give their input on the project. Pleasanton City Council 18 08/01/00 Minutes