My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN081903
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
CCMIN081903
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:37 AM
Creation date
8/13/2003 3:05:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/19/2003
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN081903
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
Mr. Campbell askexl i~ the planning and design could go {orwarcl without the three acre <br />parcel fi.om san Francisco? <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan said it depended on what site options are selected. If the parcel is <br />reserved for parking and some future building, then plans could go forward. It appears the <br />majority opinion is to orient the office building toward Main gfi.eet and to use the lot for extra <br />parking. It makes sense to develop plans with and without that parcel. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky felt parking spaces were being taken away to build structures and if the San <br />Francisco land is not available, there is no place to replace the parking spaces. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan said that can be done with a parking garage structure. An alternative is to <br />wait until the litigation is concluded. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky asked when that would be? <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush described the current litigation process and concluded it could be 12 to 24 <br />months before there is a court decision. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala said there is a big difference between $500,000 and the $3 million being asked <br />for the property. She felt a future Council may not want to spend $3 million for that three acres. <br />She preferred to wait for the conclusion of the litigation. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan said with or without the property, there are still the same issues for the <br />civic center. The original idea for getting that property was to see if it would be possible to use it <br />for a city office building. The sentiment of most has been to have the office building closer to <br />Main Street. No matter what, it is necessary to get rid of those modular buildings. With regard <br />to waiting for the litigation to conclude, keep in mind that it takes five or six years to construct a <br />building once a decision has been made. Those modular buildings are not meant to be <br />permanent and because it takes so long to get through this kind of process, it is important to keep <br />moving forward. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell asked about the comment fi.om Ms. Ayala that there was no money for <br />this. He thought about $10 million had been set aside for this. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan indicated that in the last CIP review a Councilmember wanted to <br />investigate moving the funds from the civic center to the Railroad Avenue fire station conversion <br />to an arts facility. Staff will bring back a report at a future meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Campbell asked the cost of the total civic center project. <br /> <br />Ms. McKeehan said that was unknown until a plan was finally approved. <br /> <br />Ms. Ayala felt it would be about $30 million. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 18 08/19/03 <br />M~nutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.