My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN040495
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CCMIN040495
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:54:18 AM
Creation date
5/20/1999 11:08:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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
Ms. Acosta stated that when the issue came forward about the credit, staff did not <br /> represent to Signature that it would get the credit. Staff said Signature could apply for the credit <br /> and in order to apply and qualify; it had to meet the standards in the ordinance. The decision <br /> to grant the credit is the Council's; staff never presumed to make this decision. This scenario <br /> was part of the staff report and footnoted in the CIP. The discussion was included when Council <br /> was considering the use of the $400,000 "one-time" money. She apologized if Council did not <br /> understand, but staff did its best to explain the situation. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti again asked Mr. McKeehan if Signature would be willing to continue to <br /> pay its park fees until it met its total obligation. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan agreed to pay 100% of fees until the 4251h lot. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis asked if that would be helpful. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta responded that in terms of the pool project and the community park project, <br /> yes, it was helpful. The only negative aspect would be if the park fee went up after the f~nal <br /> map for the 4251h lot. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti then referred to the possibility of using the Ruby Hill park facilities for <br /> practices for teams which had Ruby Hill residents as members. <br /> <br /> Mr. McKeehan agreed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis asked Mr. McKeehan to comment on Dr. Glenn's suggestion about the <br /> arroyo park. She believed there might be problems with the CIP and Pleasanton residents' <br /> agreeing to that proposal. She also referred to a memo to her about use of the fields and <br /> cooperation with the Parks and Community Services Department to see if some arrangements <br /> could be made to integrate Ruby Hill into the community. <br /> <br /> Mr. McKeehan indicated the arroyo issue had not been considered. It does not fit into <br /> the context of this fee discussion. Trying to acquire arroyo property is very difficult because <br /> of the quarrying operations. Lonestar owns the property and intends to quarry the area. The <br /> park fees in questions would not buy much acreage, perhaps only f~ve acres. In the long run, <br /> that area will be a chain of lakes at the conclusion of the quarry operation. There is a <br /> reclamation program that requires parks, trails, and lakes. <br /> <br /> Mr. McKeehan indicated that once there is a Ruby Hill swim team, participation will be <br /> open to anyone in the City who will then be able to use its facility in parity with any other swim <br /> team. That is, if other swim teams hold meets, Ruby Hill would do the same. In addition <br /> softball and soccer practice for the younger children would be appropriate uses at the Ruby Hill <br /> park. On a weekly basis, Ruby Hill would be open for practice for teams which had Ruby Hill <br />_ residents as members of the team. He has no problem adding those things as conditions. <br /> <br /> 04/04/95 - 11 - <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.