CCMIN120299 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Arkin asked about the cost of the various public uses of the property. Mayor Tarver said it depends on what the public says it wants. There are estimates for various park facilities available, but other uses would require research. Ms. Michelotti asked if these figures could be available at the next Council meeting. Mayor Tarver said there is also another issue of what allocations are available through the capital improvement program and project priorities. He indicated there are funds in the budget for the Parks Department for the lighted sports park, but he did not know if it was enough. The problems is there is a very tight deadline so it's difficult to get all the questions answered. Mr. Arkin asked if the public facilities would be built in a couple of years or ten years, or what? Mr. Pico said some facilities could be built soon and others would take a while. Mayor Tarver believed the advantage was having the property; then the community can debate what is to be built on it. Mr. Arkin indicated he preferred Option A for the ballot language and did not want to mention how many homes or anything else that would be on the property. That tells the voters 85% of the land is for public use and 15% is for private use. We still don't know what the 15% will be and that can be covered in the arguments. He felt the Option A ballot language had the best chance for adoption. Ms. Ayala indicated that any partner for purchase of the public land would have the funds to build its own improvements, e.g. if the school district participates, it has the funds to build a school, or the San Joaquin Rail Commission would have funds for a train station. Bob Nickeson, 4260 Pleasanton Avenue, asked for an explanation of the $50 million bond issue versus the $50 million from commercial development and how was the amount of acreage determined for the residential and commercial development. Ms. Acosta stated the $50 million from residential and commercial development would be to make up the balance of the purchase price in combination with the $50 million bond issue. The acreage for the residential on the eastern portion and commercial was about the same as proposed in the original plan for which an environmental impact report was done. Staff is trying to use the same EIR, because there is not enough time to prepare a new one. Pleasanton City Council 5 12/02/99 Minutes