My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN041503
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
CCMIN041503
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:37 AM
Creation date
4/29/2003 10:49:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/15/2003
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN041503
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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
for in the North Sycamore Specific Plan. Our plan was then commented on by the <br />Planning Commission, City Council, and neighbors surrounding the property. <br />Councilmember Ayala and a member of the then Planning Commission participated and <br />brokered many of these meeting held with the homeowners. The City and New Cities <br />participated in all of these meetings. This plan that we are requesting an extension for is <br />a result of almost two years of meetings and planning and has been endorsed by the <br />neighbors and a vesting tentative map for the project was approved by the City Council. <br />A condition of the map was the annexation of the Happy Valley area and by a side <br />agreement we agreed to pay approximately $500,000 for the Happy Valley water and <br />sewer infrastructure. When the annexation did not go forward, we asked for the <br />annexation condition to be dropped. When that condition was dropped, our obligation to <br />contribute to the Happy Valley water and sewer infrastructure went by the wayside, as it <br />was tied to the annexation. We lost a great deal of time waiting for the Happy Valley <br />annexation to happen, thus requiring us to request an extension for the vesting tentative <br />map. That extension request was granted in 2001. We moved forward with our final <br />map submittals in late 2001 and received first round comments back promptly. We <br />submitted a second round for submittals and again received prompt responses. At that <br />time he had discussions with his engineers and City staff as to the time to complete the <br />process. New Cities was told 90 days. He slowed down the process because of <br />marketing conditions; however, he revived the process in August 2002, which should <br />have given New Cities plenty of time to complete the final map process. When it became <br />apparent New Cities was not going to have everything ready to take to the City Council <br />by November, New Cities requested this extension that is now before the Council. The <br />extension was approved by the Planning Commission but appealed to the Council. At <br />this time, New Cities has offered to pay the City $500,000. At the last meeting the <br />Mayor requested that New Cities pay $2 million for this extension and said there is plenty <br />of time to get the final map. In response to the first matter, New Cities feels the $500,000 <br />offer is a great deal of money and a very generous offer. This project is already burdened <br />with more fees than any other project of this size going forward in this community. <br />Regarding the tentative map, there were many reasons the map did not get done by its <br />expiration date. He has suggested staff turn around times without being specific because <br />cooperation is the best way to move forward. As an example, there were a couple of <br />items that should have taken hours, not days, weeks, or months to complete. For <br />example, in September of last year New Cities requested the bond amount, fees and <br />subdivision agreements. Again, when putting a punch list together in late <br />October/November, New Cities requested the same items. They still do not have them, <br />even though they have talked about them and have requested them every week. Mr. <br />Bates stated that he is not too worried about this at this point; he believes everything is <br />now coming together and they are about ready to go forward with the recordation of the <br />final map. However, they do very much need this extension. In summary, New Cities <br />feels the financial offer included with the request is very adequate and they do not feel <br />the repercussions for the delay in filing for the final map should be borne by New Cities <br />alone. Mr. Bates respectfully requested City Council support in this matter for New <br />Cities and for the neighbors that put so much time into this project. Mayor Pico also <br />suggested that he was against this project all along; but, in fact, he did vote for both the <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 8 04/15/03 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.