My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN091592
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN091592
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:02 AM
Creation date
10/28/1999 11:23:48 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.
/
48
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
34 <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler asked if it was fair to say that in exchange for <br /> adding to the developable floor space permitted through the <br /> Shopping Center that there had been exactions that had been made <br /> that would perhaps, from the City's point of view, more equitably <br /> establish the traffic mitigation requirements. <br /> <br /> Mr. Eynck said that this agreement had taken some time to put <br /> together, not necessarily because it is complex, but because it <br /> involves the assurances that they need to further develop the <br /> Center if and when the opportunity is available. He believed that <br /> from the beginning they tried to negotiate this agreement with the <br /> City to be sure that they would indeed pay their fair share of <br /> traffic improvement as well as other fees. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr referred to the parking structure. She asked if it <br /> would have to go through a Design Review process with the City. <br /> <br /> Mr. Eynck answered yes. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr then referred to the Sewer Agreement. She asked what <br /> his approach would be to retrofit not only the toilets but the <br /> water use within the Center. <br /> <br /> Mr. Eynck said that Mr. Clifford would be able to answer that <br /> question. He stated that the sewer agreement, as it is now, would <br /> require them to make their best efforts to fixture the new facility <br /> with water saving devices. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked why the City should sign an agreement that <br /> limits the developer's liability for traffic improvements and <br /> further fees that might be assessed on other development in the <br /> future. <br /> <br /> Mr. Eynck explained that it was determined that there would be <br /> six intersections in the Stoneridge area that would be impacted by <br /> their expansion. It is those six intersections that they would <br /> agree to pay their fair share to mitigate adverse traffic impacts. <br /> Mr. Eynck also explained that they agreed in the agreement to pay <br /> their fair share should the City form any assessment districts, <br /> such as was done in the North Pleasanton Improvement District. <br /> Therefore, the City is in no way limiting itself on imposing <br /> additional fees for traffic. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner asked what the existing floor area was. <br /> <br /> Mr. Eynck said that it was approximately one million one <br /> hundred thousand square feet. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the <br /> public hearing closed. <br /> <br /> 9/15/92 8 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.