My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN041790
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
CCMIN041790
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:34 AM
Creation date
11/3/1999 10:20:07 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.
/
26
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
194 <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes inquired what process would determine which <br /> properties would participate in the realignment costs if the <br /> condition were removed. <br /> <br /> Mr. MacDonald replied that one way would be through the <br /> benefit district. Another would be a Deferred Street Improvement <br /> Agreement which would state that the McDowells would pay their <br /> fair share, to be determined by the City Engineer. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer inquired if forming a benefit district would mean <br /> that all the property owners in the benefit district would be <br /> entitled to develop. <br /> <br /> Mr. MacDonald answered that all this particular benefit <br /> district states is that the City is looking at annexation and that <br /> the people have the right to apply for development with no <br /> guarantee of approval. Property owners will contribute only if <br /> they get building permits. The funds will come in with the <br /> development projects, and the realignment will take place when <br /> there is sufficient money available. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked how many units would be needed to raise the <br /> money for the realignment. <br /> <br /> Mr. MacDonald said 50 units. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr commented that a secondary protection to the benefit <br /> district is that if the improvement exceeds the $10,000 per unit <br /> benefit, the General Plan would cover the difference. It first <br /> clearly establishes the cost of the road, and the benefit district <br /> is then assessed in direct proportion to that cost. <br /> <br /> Mr. MacDonald stated that the ultimate source of funds would <br /> be the General Plan, but it could also be development further down <br /> Vineyard Avenue, because the City could look at a specific plan <br /> for a larger area which would include the logical participants in <br /> the road improvement project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer stated that the McDowells' project is unique and <br /> beautiful and that he does not believe that development would <br /> occur all the way to Riverhill Winery. He explained that the <br /> Heinz's requested annexation, and from there, Council directed <br /> staff to find out how many other property owners in the area would <br /> be interested in annexation, with no reference to contributing to <br /> the Vineyard Avenue realignment. He added that Council has not <br /> made any decision regarding any further developments on Vineyard <br /> Avenue other than the McDowells'. He asked Mr. MacDonald if he <br /> were requesting Council to allow the McDowells to bring back the <br /> project for consideration as a PUD. <br /> <br /> - 8 - <br /> 4-17-90 <br /> <br /> [ <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.