My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN020492
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN020492
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:03 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 10:01:48 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.
/
28
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
73 <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer asked if there would be any support in building <br /> a park at the entrance of this project because he felt that a park <br /> would be a better use for that corner. He said that some of the <br /> park acreage could be moved to the front of the project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler agreed and suggested there be an agreement with the <br /> property owners on how they would participate in that. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarvet was concerned with the traffic and parking issues, <br /> should a park be placed at the entrance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler commented that the use of the park should determine <br />where it should be located. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner agreed and felt that the Parks Commission would <br />need to advise Council what kind of park should be placed there. <br />Ms. Scribner commented that the School District had made it clear <br />that it had no intention on building a school on that site. She <br />felt that it should not be forced in keeping the property in <br />reserve. She stated that by approving this, it would enable the <br />District to address the needs of the school age children. <br /> <br /> The Council present was unanimous that the ten acre school <br />facility on the five acre park/five acre institutional use be <br />eliminated from the Specific Plan on the School District Property; <br />the Parks and Recreation Commission is to consider and recommend <br />where and what type of park would be appropriate in the Specific <br />Plan area. <br /> <br />Re~uirinu Dr0pertv owners to pay a pro-rata share of the cost of <br />accruirinu and/or imPr0Vinq a park. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer believed that '!the major developers of the <br />property should pay for the acquisition/development of a park and <br />then a reimbursement agreement be set up to pay the developers back <br />if other property owners, that have no .current intention to <br />develop, later develop. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush asked if Council would want to see a cap as to time <br />on such reimbursement agreement. Typically, the reimbursement <br />agreements have been for ten years but it was in Council's <br />discretion if it wanted a cap, and if so, for what length of time. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler felt that it would be inappropriate to use a short <br />time frame. He felt the agreements should be indefinite because of <br />the nature of the properties. <br /> <br />2/4/92 <br /> 19 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.