My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN040390
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
CCMIN040390
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:34 AM
Creation date
11/3/1999 10:18:29 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.
/
22
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
181 <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes asked how the cost allocation would be worked out <br />if the zoning is changed in the future from medium to low <br />density. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift answered that the SDSP would have to be amended <br />because it would have to conform with the General Plan. At that <br />point, a determination will have to be made whether or not it <br />would be necessary to change the allocation of costs. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer inquired if the School District asked for a five <br />acre school site. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that when the Plan was reviewed, the School <br />District asked for a site that was big enough for an elementary <br />school. The School District preferred a ten acre school site for <br />a 600-900-student elementary school. But it is anticipated that <br />this school would be smaller than that. The City has laid out a <br />school that will handle 600 students on the five acre school site, <br />in conjunction with a five acre neighborhood park immediately <br />adjacent. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes asked what the cost allocation balance of the <br />acreage would be if the school and park sites were changed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that there would be no change with respect <br />to the school site because the school site is actually being <br />purchased by school fees. However, a change in the park would <br />probably require a modification in the Plan. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Butler, and seconded by Ms. Mohr, that <br />Resolution No. 90-78 be adopted, approving the Stoneridge Drive <br />Specific Plan cost distributions. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Butler, Mohr, Tarver and Mayor <br /> Mercer <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Item 12b <br />Request for Annexation for Approximately 21.3 Acres Located on the <br />South Side of Vineyard Avenue (Heinz) <br /> <br /> Mr. Elliott presented his report (SR 90:140) regarding the <br />matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated that it was his understanding that no <br />annexations or applications would be processed until the Vineyard <br />Study was completed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes agreed that Council had directed staff to do <br />that. He felt, however, that this property has the merit of <br />creating a link to Ruby Hills. <br /> <br /> - 17 - <br /> 4-3-90 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.