My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN012098
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
CCMIN012098
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:27 AM
Creation date
2/3/1999 3:44:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/20/1998
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
an impact on the project. He suggested that BAE still provide input to the ongoing planning <br />process while the unknowns are worked out. He would like another firm, similar to BAE, to <br />be retained to comment on the feasibility report. At this time the plan does not specifically <br />comment on the number of units for each parcel. He felt the fair way to allocate the number <br />of units per parcel was to divide the number of allowable units for the area by the amount of <br />acreage for the area and determine the number of units per acre. If a particular property owner <br />does not wish to develop or the land is unable to support the number of units, then any excess <br />units would be divided up among the remaining parcels. He was in favor of researching other <br />uses for the area but felt a hundred room inn, with a convention center, was overwhelming for <br />the area. He wanted to remind Council that many property owners in the area had already <br />contributed over $300,000 on previous studies for the area. He believed the reason for the high <br />infrastructure costs was a direct result from the Ruby Hill development. In order to preserve <br />this rural area, it is in the City's best interest to approve an economic feasibility plan now, <br />instead of the possibility of future higher densities, which would be required to offset escalating <br />infrastructures costs. He said another way to control growth in Pleasanton would be to stop <br />annexing property. He agreed there was a need for bike lanes. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala asked whether, under his proposal, all the acreage would be included, <br />regardless of whether it was flat or hilly? <br /> <br /> Mr. Goodwin said yes, as long as the property could support the number of houses. If <br />the property could not, then the excess would be divided among the remaining properties. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver felt his proposal would take value away from one property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Goodwin said the number of units per parcel had not been determined yet. If a <br />property owner had twenty acres of unbuildable land, the owner would end up with no units <br />anyway. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked whether Table 1 was based on gross developable acres. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rasmussen said yes and each parcel would be allowed at least one housing unit. A <br />decision had not been made as to how the housing units would be distributed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked, where the numbers include more than one parcel, did it mean <br />overall gross developable acreage? <br /> <br /> Mr. Goodwin said his understanding was the numbers indicated gross acreage rather than <br />gross developable acreage. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver said the plan needed to be consistent with the General Plan. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 1/20/98 <br />Minutes 17 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.