CCMIN082100 - Laserfiche WebLink

was not a minor modification and a golf course cannot be accommodated without moving lots and houses. She recommended a condition that requires Greenbriar to maintain the betins, swales, etc. until the City has plans for the use of the public land, Dotma Smith, 4334 Valley Avenue, indicated she was a resident and business owner in Pleasanton and supported this project. She liked having 300 acres for the City at no cost. The lighted sports park is needed and she liked the mix of housing product and the prices. She thought deadlines were a good thing. The City has been working on this for a very long time. Another City has owned part of Pleasanton since the 1930's and it is time to get it back. She liked the design of the neo-traditional and second units. She reiterated that she lives and works near Valley Avenue and realized it is very difficult to have a jobs/housing balance. It is interesting that when a high density proposal comes forward them are complaints from surro~mding residents. When there are fewer houses, there are complaints because we don't have enough high density. She referred to a project in San Jose and did not like it. She grew up in the Central Valley and felt open fields and hay don't look great. She would prefer to have pretty architecture on the Bemal property and wanted a cultural center on the property. Emil Jilwan, 7795 Knollbrook Drive, indicated he had read material about the project and listened to the presentations. He felt Greenbriar had done a great job and provided a good plan for the City. It preserves 300+ acres of open space free to the City. He felt the project had beautiful mixed housing and although them are a few loose ends~ he was confident they could be resolved. He urged Council to vote for the project. Cindy McGovem, 9206 Longview Drive, repmsanting the Pleasanton Unified School District, indicated it had reached agreement with GHC on the school impact fee. She appreciated working with Greenbriar on reaching this agreement. She also appreciated the agreement to work with San Francisco to get the $3.4 million school impact ~e credits befum any developer fees would come to the School District. The California Teachers Association magazine reported Pleasanton as one of the highest paying school districts in the State of Calithmia. As a resident, this property is very important to her. She liked seeing the fields and would not care if it were never developed. She also liked the fact that you will take public uses to a vote of the people. That prioritizes the needs of the community. lfthe people vote for it, Council will know it is meeting the needs of the conaxnunity. She would like to concur with the Pleasanton Weekly on its commendation of Pat Costanzo for working with the City. She felt we are m~ing a better plan. She has watched this plan go from 2,500 units down to 1,900 units and now down to 581 units. She believed the residents were well informed when they voted on Measure I. She felt thejobs/housing irabalance was an issue when Stoneridge Mall and Hacienda Business Park were approved and people knew we could never provide housing for all those jobs. What it does do is provide economic stability in the community so it can maintain its infrastructure for the City with that tax base. Regarding transportation to schools, she assumed there would be ways to get kids to school and she felt the berms were okay. They do not get graffiti on herins like you do on soundwalls. Pleasanton City Council 13 08/21/00 Minutes