CCMIN110403 - Laserfiche WebLink

would like to be able to start talking about these issues and come up with some sort of solution for the developer, while also having discussions with the community. For the public's understanffmg, Ms. Ayah pointed out that her motion was not intended to stop the senior project. By approving the bonds, Council has answered one of the requests of the developer, and Council has responded to the changes that have occurred for furore development. She is now asking for the developer to respond to the changes in the City's environment. Mayor Pieo believed her motion did not interfere with the developer's ability to build the houses. He indicated his concern with the motion. He believed there was a process which involved a significant portion of the community and a significant portion of the neighborhood. Council reached some major compromises with the property owner, the developer, the neighbors, the church, the School District, and others involved in this project. As part of this process, he reminded Council that it made commitments to the residents and noted that a discussion was entered into specifically as to whether the City would acquire the 23-acre property for a park site, which the residents did not support. He also reminded Council that when the PUD plan was approved for the Busch Property, it was without any opposition. He believed Council needed to be careful if it chose to reconsider its prior decision. There would be significant other oppommities on the east side of Pleasanton and the corridor of the Hansen property to look at another community park that might be different from the Staples Ranch project. He believed the City would be in a strong position to demand some type of amenities from future developers when the potential development fights are reviewed, which could potentially provide the City with a community park site without the City having to pay market value for the land. He believed there would be other potential options available to the City for a community park without having to step into the School District's shoes. He supported the position Council took at the time and still believed it to be a good position. He pointed out that the community strongly supported the senior housing option on the Busch property. He disagreed with continuing the dialogue if it was related to the credits. This would reopen the public process and there would be the need to ensure that all stakeholders were involved if Council were looking at changed land uses on the Busch property. If that was not the intent, he believed Council should not mention reopening the discussion to the extent that Council wants to renegofiate stepping into the shoes of the School District. He was one of the first to raise the issue of trading rental credits to for-sale housing credits. He would be content in leaving the credits for rental property uses and have the credits traded fi.om rental to rental versus for-sale housing. Ms. Ayala stated that her motion only allows Council the opportunity to have these discussions. She did not want to go back on the word to the community. She was looking for a window of opportunity to hold these discussions regarding the housing of students and any additional uses. She did not believe there was a sense of urgency to act on the matter as the developer had what it needed to move ahead with the project. She believed Council needed time to work out the issues that had changed fi.om the City's standpoint and would like to be given that oppommity. Pleasanton City Council 17 11/4/03 M'mutes