My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN010296
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
CCMIN010296
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:45 AM
Creation date
5/13/1999 9:54:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/2/1996
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
Mr. Swift stated that them was a draft modified condition which now reads fees may be <br />used for a minimum five acre neighborhood park or a minimum twenty acre community park. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked how this is worded if this project is to be conditioned to provide <br />a twenty acre park. It is up to Council to decide the park location and it is written in the <br />conditions that the project has to pay the fees. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis stated that other areas of the Business Park was conditioned for the <br />community park. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that the way the condition currently reads the fees can be used for a <br />twenty-acre community park rather than for a neighborhood park. The last potion of the <br />condition has been modified to require Signature Properties to build park improvements should <br />the site be available at the time that it was ready to start its first phase. That point has passed <br />so the developer is not obligated to build the park improvements. It now reads that if there is <br />still some project to build, the City can ask Signature to construct the park improvements up to <br />a limit of its dedication requirements. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta commented that it was up to Council as to what will be done even though <br />staff recommends leaving the five acre option in there. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarvet believed that this development is an impwvement over the prior project. <br />He did not think a twenty-acre park will be developed in the Business Park and felt it was a <br />moot point. He felt the energy should be spent developing neighborhood parks large enough to <br />satisfy the needs of the residential projects that are being approved. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Michdotti, and seconded by Ms. Mohr, that Ordinance No. <br />1673 be introduced, to be read by title only and waiving further readlng thereof, approvinl <br />the development plan for a 146-unit clustered, single-family detached residential <br />development, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the staff report. <br /> <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers - Dennis, Michelotti, Mohr, and Mayor Tarver <br />NOES: Councilmember Pico <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Item 7a <br />(1~ On-goln? discussion regardln~ San FrancisCO Pr0pert_v and Cooperative Plannln~ <br />Process for the San Francisco Water De0ar~ment - Bernal Avenue Site <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift presented the staff report. <br /> <br />01/02/96 -17- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.