CCMIN082100 - Laserfiche WebLink

concemed that many of the environmental mitigations (berms, retention ponds, etc.) for Greanbriar's development were being placed on the public lands. She also l~lt Council should think carefully before accepting responsibility lbr the maintenance and ownership of the Arroyo. She supported retaining the possibility of a golf course on the western parcel. There is a huge financial issue in terms of long term platruing for the public parcel. She referred to the Director of Fhmnce's analysis of the cost of improving the public parcel tbr public use. The City is only getting 280 acres and the School District is asking for 40 of those acres, which would leave 238 acres for public use as originally proposed. The public uses could cost as much as $15-20 million. Ttmt money is nowhere in the Capital Improvement Program, facilities fees, or any other planning process. She felt it was a problem approving this project in two phases without a master plan. It is unknown what phase two will cost. The most unfortunate thing about all this is the time constraint imposed on the City. She strongly urged formulating a master plan for this parcel as well as detailed design standards. There is no plan regarding hazardous materials. She appreciated people calling her with questions on this mailer. Ms. Michelotti invited the public to address the issue ofbem~s along the western property. The use of the open space is undetermined at this time. The 16-18 foot berm will prevent looking into the property. She proposed moving the berms closer to the homes. She was very concerned about keeping the view into the property. Ms. Acosta said staff has done the best job possible in providing staff reports and information to the public in the available thne frames. She explained the figure she quoted regarding property taxes was the net revenue to the City, not the gross revenue. If the value of the developed property is $400 million, the property taxes to the City would be $1.2 million. The net revenue of $300,000 is after paying for all the services, including police, fire, public services, etc., to the property. Mayor Tarver said there have been countless public hearings, testimony, and modifications to the plans. He hoped everyone has had an opportunity to review the material and he asked that the public comments be specific. Comments would be accepted until August 28. tte believed the amonnt of effort on this has led to great conditions of approval, a good Specific Plan, and a good value lbr the city. There will always be some issues of disagreement. Rick Pickering, Alameda County Fair Association, 4501 Pleasanton Avenue, did not think the environmental work adequately addressed the impacts this project will have on the on-going operation of the Fairgrounds or the impact the Fairgrounds operations will have on this project. He referred to the Nolan Farms project, which required notices in the deeds and CC&Rs regarding the Fairgrounds. Similar notices should be included in this project. Mr. Swirl indicated that was in the conditions of approval. Pleasanton City Council 6 08/21/00 Minutes