Laserfiche WebLink
subject to the conditions of approval including its on-going obligation to fund the infrastructure <br /> at West Las Positas, if it is determined that it needs to be built. He referred to Option 5 e(2) <br /> and asked if that applies to lots in Hacienda Business Park that do not have a specific <br /> development plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated that as long as lots were developed under the existing Development <br /> Agreement, then none of the provisions of Option 5 apply. However, if there were a new <br /> application which is a modification to an existing development agreement, Option 5 could apply. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sweeney then reminded everyone that the reason Prudential has those vested rights <br /> is that it obligated itself to pay for infrastructure in advance. He is sympathetic to the concerns <br /> of the residents regarding cut-through traffic. Hacienda Business Park sees that everyday. He <br /> hopes to work on the citizens committee and to look at all alternatives to see that the residents <br /> are not impacted negatively by cut-through traffic. He hopes the process would take less than <br /> seventeen months. He also believed that Pleasanton does not need to feel threatened by the <br /> Alameda County approval of a development for the San Francisco Bernal Avenue property. He <br /> was certain that property would develop within the City of Pleasanton. <br /> <br /> There was a break at 9:12 p.m. <br /> <br /> The meeting reconvened at 9:24 p.m. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis agreed that continuing the decision for a couple of weeks is good. She was <br /> pleased that this issue was recognized early. One of Mr. Sweeney's points was the impact on <br /> businesses and how they relate to each other. How do we maintain the holding capacity of the <br /> system and divide it fairly among the businesses as they make changes. The businesses are <br /> developing at different rates; some have already paid their obligations, others have obligated <br /> their properties into the future and some obligations are yet to be determined. Everyone wants <br /> a share of the remaining capacity. She wanted to make sure there is a consistent and fair policy <br /> and supported the recommendations of Mr. Pico in Option 5. This is a balanced community and <br /> it is important to weigh impacts on neighborhoods and businesses. She was impressed by <br /> everyone's comments and understands their concerns. She wants the business community to be <br /> engaged in this process in a positive way. She has questions about the traffic study in the <br /> memorandum and will be discussing this with staff in the next two weeks. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala agreed more clarification was necessary. She also wanted the newspapers to <br /> make it clear there is no moratorium in Pleasanton. We are elected to represent all of <br /> Pleasanton and the economic growth is important to every citizen as well as to the businesses. <br /> She strongly urged that the timeline be reviewed for the citizens committee study. The City <br /> cannot be at a standstill for seventeen months. She believed the same amount of work could be <br /> done in a shorter period of time. <br /> <br />-- Mr. Tarver felt the citizens must be aware of and involved in this process. He did not <br /> want to exclude anything from the citizens' review. However, there are negotiated development <br /> <br /> 12 1/07/97 <br /> <br /> <br />