Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Swift said that if a residential project were approved on the remaining five- <br />acre parcel, it would require a General Plan amendment and a rezoning of the property <br />with a design review development plan in conjunction with that rezoning. All of these <br />actions are referendable and require approval by both the Planning Commission and the <br />City Council. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala asked staff if it was aware of any timing issues associated with this <br />transaction? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift believed that Valley Care had a deadline to exercise its option. He did <br />not know whether there was a deadline to conclude the subdivision and purchase. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala believed that by July 20, the Planning Commission and Council would <br />have completed its General Plan discussion and have a better idea if there are any <br />proposals for residential developments on the remaining five-acres. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift noted that the decision as to whether or not to change the General Plan <br />on that site is a year away. Staff will know more after the completion of the joint <br />workshop between the Planning Commission and the City Council to be held on July 29. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala wanted to find out if there is a timing issue as far as Valley Care is <br />concerned. She pointed out that Verona residents have a trust issue with developers. She <br />did not believe there was any reason to move forward with this proposal, and it was not <br />her intention, at this time, to place housing on this piece of land. She suggested delaying <br />the approval for this proposal until after the completion of the Planning Commission <br />workshop and the joint Planning Commission and City Council General Plan workshop. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky was not sure what Council would learn between now and the next <br />Council meeting. He believed that Council knew the developer would like to construct <br />residential units on the remaining five-acres, which is not what Council is considering at <br />this particular time. <br /> <br /> In response to Mr. Brozosky's comments, Ms. Ayala pointed out again that the <br />Verona residents have a trust issue with developers. She is looking to gain the trust of the <br />Verona residents, which can be achieved by Council not taking a quick and easy action <br />that could be detrimental to the Verona residents' community. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico believed that every opportunity would be available to the Verona <br />homeowners in the future in the event they wish to express their concerns regarding the <br />uses for the remaining five-acre parcel. He saw no reason why Council would not want <br />to move forward and proceed with this subdivision. What ultimately ends up on this <br />property will be a future decision made by a future Council. He believed it was <br />appropriate to support the Valley Health Care health system and its desire to obtain the <br />appropriate level of facilities in Pleasanton. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 14 06/15/04 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />