Laserfiche WebLink
Lew McKinney, son-in-law of Richard Irby, 3780 Stanley <br />Boulevard, understood that the alternative line for the roadway <br />alignment was approved by the City Council. He believed that <br />approval had negative impacts both on development feasibility as <br />well as the financial feasibility of any project on the Irby <br />property. That is due to the large taking of land across from the <br />site as well as the potential taking of land on the back of the <br />site for the Del Valle expansion. He realized that these issues <br />had been discussed previously, but was aware that things can get <br />changed in the future. He was concerned that this project had no <br />conditions such that the City could come back to the applicant and <br />ask for the proper amount of land necessary to expand the roadway <br />on the applicant's side. Mr. McKinney pointed out that in the <br />application there was no land being given for any infrastructure <br />improvements to the City of Pleasanton. He was also concerned that <br />there was nothing in the application regarding the underground <br />utilities. He requested that all underground utilities be done on <br />the applicant's side of the street. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer explained that Condition 26, about which Mr. <br />Madden spoke of was the condition requiring him to underground the <br />utilities on his property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift clarified that the condition requires the utilities <br />be placed underground. The utilities would go within the existing <br />or future right-of-way of the street but it was not decided whether <br />or not the utilities are to be on the north or south side of <br />Stanley Boulevard. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if Mr. McKinney understood that the property <br />being discussed this evening was from California Avenue east and is <br />not opposite the Irby property. <br /> <br /> Mr. McKinney said that there was no misunderstanding. He <br />indicated that there was another application coming from Kaufman & <br />Broad for property owned by this applicant and the same concerns <br />apply to both properties. <br /> <br /> Mr. Madden indicated Alternative A is 2000 feet west of this <br />parcel and the Del Valle extension has nothing to do with this <br />proposed project. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if Building Four was the mini-storage building. <br /> <br /> Mr. Madden stated that there were two alternatives and <br />Alternative A would take the last portion off and replace the last <br />buildings with two buildings which are mini-warehouses with access <br />between the two buildings. <br /> <br />9/15/92 5 <br /> <br /> <br />