My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN110398
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
CCMIN110398
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:27 AM
Creation date
2/3/1999 7:03:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/3/1998
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
Mayor Tarver wanted Pleasanton to have a golf course. He said there is great support <br />for the golf course and felt it would happen without having to burden the golf course with <br />additional fees. <br /> <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers - Ayala, Dennis, Michelotti, and Pico. <br />NOES: Mayor Tarver <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Item 6c <br />Request to initiate annexation of and approval of Pre-annexation Agreements for the Fuller <br />and Smathers Properties, 4120 and 4126 Foothill Road. (SR98:300) <br /> <br /> Brian Swift presented the staff report. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis asked what tax formula would apply. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said part of the annexation process is to negotiate the tax sharing agreement. <br />Staff is suggesting the "Mayor's Formula". <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta said the Mayor's Formula has not been an issue on the smaller annexations. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico said the .staff report states the Fullers' future plans include possible subdivision <br />and construction of several homes on portions of their lot which lie below the 670 elevation. <br />By annexing this property into the City, does this ensure that the property will be subdivided or <br />does it make it easier to subdivide the property, because it will have access to City water and <br />sewer. He had a concern about property subdividing on the western ridge and would not support <br />an annexation that added more lots to the western ridge. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said the property below the 670 elevation is shown on the General Plan as <br />rural density residential which has a gross density of one unit per five acres. It is not governed <br />by the Measure F initiative which begins at the 670 line. There is nothing in the proposed <br />agreement that says the City Council has to approve a subsequent development plan. The PUD <br />process would be required for showing future potential lot splits and would be subject to City <br />Council approval. Annexing the property to the City makes the City of Pleasanton the governing <br />body. If the property stays within Alameda County, then Alameda County would be the <br />governing body. County zoning for this property is large lot agricultural and would require <br />rezoning below the 670 line to allow for a subdivision. The City might have some input if the <br />property wanted to use City services. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 10 11/03/98 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.