PC 10/23/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

~ Commissioner Hovingh raised the question to Mr. Rasmussen if there was any serious public controversy concerning the environmental effects brought on by the project. He noted that a report he was reading said there was not, but pointed out that there must be some serious controversery for people to stay here at the meeting until 12:30 in the morning. Mr. Rasmussen noted that when the initial study was prepared following the preannexation agreement, staff received several calls from concerned citizens. Since then, staff has not received very many calls. He felt they would get a better idea of the situation after hearing from the citizens here tonight, as some were in support of the project, not against. mE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Jim McKeehan represented Signature Properties. He said he has been responsible for working with the project for the last 3 112 years and feels like he knows the situation as well as anyone, being involved in all the negotiations and litigations. He noted that tonight's meeting was designed to do a number of things: have a General Plan amendment and prezoning; and a presentation on the tentative map. Even though not in the City, Signature Homes agreed to bring the tentative map to Pleasanton, incorporate the comments into the processing of the tentative map. Because staff was not ready to go forward with the tentative map tonight, Mr. McKeehan did not bring a presentation to the Commission, which would be done in two weeks. Tonight's action is anticipated to only general plan and prezone the property. The only reason they are doing that is because the City has agreed to annex the property. He noted the Council approved the pre-development agreement when they agreed to annex the property. In regard to the Livermore City Attorney, Mr. Curry's letter, Mr. McKeehan said he has not read the letter. He stated that the City of Livermore has already sued them and are in litigation with them, along with the County. As in the pre-annexation agreement, they have agreed that if Livermore sues the City of Pleasanton, they would indemnify the City of Pleasanton, as they are indemnifying the County of Alameda. Livermore has stated that the EIR is inadequate, and the second allegation says the County does not have a valid General Plan. Livermore has also indicated that Pleasanton does not have a valid General Plan. In response to the question of who negotiated the agreements between Signature Properties and the City of Pleasanton, Mr. McKeehan said it was the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the Planning Director, Mr. McKeehan and one other Signature representative. It went to the City Council a number of times and after a number of changes, came up with the final preannexation agreement that exists today. Mr. McKeehan responded to questions raised by Commissioner Horan. Commissioner Michelotti and Mr. McKeehan discussed at length issues relating to the financial administration of the project; whether fees would go into a trust; and who would manage these funds. Minutes P1anning Commission Meeting October 23, 1991 Page 18 . .