My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN032001
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CCMIN032001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:33 AM
Creation date
4/13/2001 5:13:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/20/2001
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN032001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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
projects. Finally, he wanted to put in a word for various property owners who have <br />participated in the North Sycamore Specific Plan and annexation of North Sycamore area <br />into Pleasanton. After 18 years of effort, they have all the negatives and none of the <br />positives, such as paved roads, water and sewer. These are good people that don't make <br />a fuss. They have attended all meetings and have believed Council would allow this <br />project to go forward. He asked Council to approve the major modification by deleting <br />Condition 99, approve the appeal for vesting tentative map 7193 by deleting Condition 3 <br />and instruct staffto find 48 growth management allocations for 2001 and 2002. At the <br />time his company bought this property, there were 204 growth management allocations <br />reserved for the North Sycamore Specific Plan. He knows that CJreenbriar has used 111, <br />but the rest have not been used. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan said there was no reservation of growth management for the <br />North Sycamore Specific Plan. There was a preference commitment to the School <br />District for the property that it was selling, but there was no reservation under the <br />Specific Plan. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala said there is a lot of history surrounding this project. She asked Mr. <br />Bates why he didn't come back to Council before now if he had expected annexation to <br />take place in November 1999. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bates said there were discussions with staff, who kept saying it would come <br />soon. He felt he has waited long enough and wanted to proceed with the tentative map <br />and to continue with the project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell had questions, but wanted to hear other speakers first. He <br />understood part of the approval was that New Cities would pay for road extension and for <br />sewer and water. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bates said that was in Condition 98. There is also an agreement about a pro <br />rata share of water and sewer. <br /> <br />Mr. Campbell wanted to make certain that would still happen. <br /> <br />Mr. Bates agreed. <br /> <br />Mr. Campbell asked if he would be willing pay for permits to get the golf course. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bates said his company would conlribute its share if the annexation <br />requirement were removed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala indicated Greenbriar is advertising its houses are on the way to the golf <br />course and asked if New Cities would do the same. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bates had not considered that, but he looked forward to completion of the <br />golf course. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 14 03/20/01 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.