My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN090297
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
CCMIN090297
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:36 AM
Creation date
5/10/1999 6:04:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/2/1997
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
Mr. Sweeney asked Council to support 6a(4) and to accept the neighborhood park <br />mitigation. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver asked why the property could not be dedicated for park purposes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sweeney commented that normally what would happen is dedication would take place <br />in lieu of park fees. Presently the dedication ordinance allows the developer a $240,000 per <br />acre credit. Prudential is offering this property to the City for $110,000 per acre. This covers <br />the outstanding bonds on Parcel 25A; Parcel F is free of assessments. He understood what the <br />request is but Prudential cannot convey the 6.6 acres free of charge. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico asked if Prudential would pay for the cost of the bridge to connect the two park <br />parcels. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sweeney said if the project is conditioned that someone else pay for the bridge rather <br />than the City, it could be worked out. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala asked staff if the two proposed parks will work? <br /> <br /> Ms. Bengtson said the Park and Recreation Commission has looked at the relationship <br />of the properties to each other. The three acre park would be a passive park for casual use and <br />the 6.6 acres would be for active uses. The park program being proposed indicates a <br />complimentary program between the two parks. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver opened the public hearing. <br /> <br /> Emie Munzo, 5228 Genovesio, said his neighborhood would be the most impacted by <br />the construction of the apartments, but he strongly supported the project, especially the proposed <br />new parks. He urged Council to vote yes. <br /> <br /> Jan Batcheller, 644 St. Marys Street, said in December 1991, a motion was made and <br />approved to rezone some of the Hacienda Business Park land to high density residential. She <br />agreed with this motion. Disabled, young people, senior citizens and people in transition <br />frequently find themselves in need of rental housing. This project would give these people <br />housing. She believed these people would be contributing to the City of Pleasanton. This <br />project replaces a previously approved project and is far superior by any measure. This project <br />would also take care of one of the priorities on the Council's priority list. She urged Council <br />to vote yes on this project. <br /> <br /> Steve Dunne, 5062 Carducci Drive, believed there needed to be more park area for large <br />residential areas. This project would provide that park area. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 9/2/97 <br />Minutes 7 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.