My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL 7-21-26
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2026
>
072126 REGULAR
>
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL 7-21-26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/6/2026 3:41:28 PM
Creation date
8/6/2026 3:41:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
7/21/2026
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
<br /> <br />resolve this issue, and also be responsive to City staff comments, we propose the following: <br /> <br />• The City would agree to the development team’s proposed language that allows for a Plan B <br />that does not involve eminent domain . (See Attachment 1 for the proposed revisions.) <br /> <br />o If Plan B were pursued, the Project would be required to go through the City’s typical <br />process pursuant to its local Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Map Act. This <br />means that City staff would have ample time and opportunity to review and comment <br />on the revised site plan pursuant to its standard procedures. Also, to the extent a <br />revised tentative map were required, then it would need to go through the standard <br />hearing process at the Planning Commission (with any appeal going before the City <br />Council). <br />o The development team would also agree that if Plan B were pursued, the revised site <br />plan must reflect grading with pad elevations along the western edge of the Project site <br />being within one foot of the current site plan. This additional give is intended to assure <br />City staff that any Plan B pursued would retain a grading plan that is substantially <br />similar to the current site plan. <br /> <br />In closing, we have been pursuing this development for decades and we strongly desire for the Project <br />to be built in Pleasanton. With the City’s agreement to the requested changes to the PADA, we can <br />work together to deliver this Project for the benefit of the Pleasanton community. To that end, we <br />respectfully request the City Council’s approval of the Project, including the PADA, subject to the <br />revisions set forth in Attachment 1 being incorporated. <br /> <br />We look forward to working with the City of Pleasanton to bring this signature project to fruition. We <br />welcome the opportunity to address any questions or feedback in advance of the Tuesday evening <br />hearing to help ensure alignment and a productive discussion. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Steve Dunn <br />Senior Managing Director <br />USL Pleasanton Lakes l.P. <br />c/o Steelwave, LLC <br /> <br />Cc: Steve Reilly, 330 Land Company LLC <br />Bridget Metz, USL Pleasanton Lakes L.P. <br /> Joe Calabrigo, City of Pleasanton <br /> Ellen Clark, City of Pleasanton <br /> Katherine Wisinski, City of Pleasanton <br /> Nadia Costa, GVR Partners
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.