My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN100102
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
CCMIN100102
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:35 AM
Creation date
10/25/2002 4:07:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/1/2002
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN100102
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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
Park. She believed they will benefit from the input from the City's experience in planning <br />residential development, what is livable, etc. She did not believe the outcome of this process <br />was predictable, but agreed it was an exploratory process. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala looked forward to seeing a list of pros and cons from this process. She was <br />not looking for a recommendation from the group. She believed that should be in the next step <br />after the City has accepted the concept. She assumed the fees for the North Pleasanton <br />Improvement Plan would go away. We don't know which properties are involved in this plan <br />and which owners have a contract. She felt this could change the funding of the interchange. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan said if you are talking about those property owners who are committed to <br />providing funding in the future for the interchange or some alternative, there would be property <br />by property review of obligations. If there is consideration for a different land use than <br />previously, then Council could also review the agreement and new conditions. <br /> <br />Ms. Ayala felt that would affect the West Las Positas Interchange. <br /> <br />Ms. McKeehan said possibly, but not negatively. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis wanted to make certain that input is not limited to owners within the Business <br />Park. She felt this should include community-wide input, from residents, the School District, <br />etc. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti thought this was to be an independent study, but with input from the <br />community. It is a review of transit-oriented development and would review traffic and other <br />things. She asked if this was just transit oriented or will the group make recommendations on <br />property use. She thought it was to look at possible sites for additional housing or a transit <br />village on a more northern location in the Business Park. When the Hacienda Business Park was <br />first approved, there was a recommendation to have housing all along West Las Positas. That <br />was not approved at the time, but since that time there have been changes in the economy and <br />that housing is now built. She believed this was to be an independent look at the area with <br />recommendations on the feasibility. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan indicated if Council was interested in participation in this study, that staff <br />would bring back a scope of work and timeline. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Dennis, seconded by Mr. Campbell, to participate in a <br />feasibility study of mixed use development in Hacienda Business Park. <br /> <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers - Ayala, Campbell, Dennis, Michelotti, and Mayor Pico <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 25 10/01/02 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.