My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN081500
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
CCMIN081500
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:32 AM
Creation date
9/11/2000 9:44:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/15/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
Ms. Ayala wanted to preserve useable open space areas for city purposes and not <br />just accept le~over areas around the residential development. <br /> <br /> Mr. Costanzo said that was a subjecqive observation. This is a very large piece of <br />property and he did not believe the City was getting "leecovers~'. He encouraged Cotmcil <br />to visit the property and sec how it looks aftcr being staked. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti discussed the visual impacts for people traveling north on <br />1-680. Housing near the commercial area would be very visible. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico indicated Alterrrdtive 7B 1 was less desirable for him than 7C 1. He <br />agreed most of the units west of Valley Avenue should be closer to the commercial area <br />and the freeway. <br /> <br /> There was discussion regarding the process of modifying the housing plan, once <br />the PUD had been approve& and whether such a change would be subject to a <br />relbrendum. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated resolution of that issue could be part of the development <br />agreement. Another of the issues in the development agreement is the length of time <br />necessary to pursue regulatory permits for the Eastern Parcel. Greenbriar would like one <br />year and the City prefers to allocate three years. Staff compromised and recommended <br />two years, with 18 months to be spent on Alternative A and six months for Alternative B. <br />Greenbriar preferred the split to be 15/9. <br /> <br /> Mr. Costanzo believed it would be known within one year whether environmental <br />pcrmits for the East parcel can be obtained. The City's experience regarding the golf <br />course is different because of the type of project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico agreed to 15 months for A and nine months for B. His concern was the <br />date of transfer of the open space to the City of Pleasanton. <br /> <br />Mr. Costanzo could not firmly state when the transfer would take place. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico thought it should take place at the time of annexation. The City needs to <br />stall planning the open space uses as quickly as possible. He tblt there were incentives to <br />encourage a compromise. <br /> <br /> Mr. Costanzo indicated the City could start planning the open space at any time. <br />The largest incentive for Greenbriar was that fact that it is paying over $60~000 a day in <br />interest. It was unacceptable to Greenbriar to tie ttansfer of the property to annexation. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver favored Alternative 7A and allowing 24 months to pursue the <br />environmental permits. IIe wanted title transferred to the property as soon ~s possible. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 6 08/15/00 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.