CCMIN120799 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Acosta indicated the commercial development was the same as proposed by San Francisco and the residential on the eastern portion is also the same. Mayor Tarver said Council formed the committee to decide what will happen on the property. It can't be determined now how much will be open space. Mr. Pico felt there would be the same amount of open space as was proposed under the San Francisco plan. However, under the San Francisco plan there were 1,900 homes. If this is approved by the voters, there will be no more than 374 homes. The remaining land that would have been used by about 1,500 homes will be available for public uses to be determined. Mr. Swift said the San Francisco proposal has approximately 240 acres that would be developed. The remaining approximately 260 acres are either golf course, parkland or natural open space. Julie Testa, 3494 Torlano Court, supported the opportunity to take control of this land. In talking to other people in the community, she has seen much excitement and support for this. She has supported a third comprehensive high school and is excited there will be land available. Rene Steinhauer, 5524 Oakmont Circle, Livermore, representing Tri-Valley Cares, expressed his concerns about development of this property because of concerns about possible radioactive material on the property. He also expressed opposition to the injection of reverse osmosis treated wastewater into the groundwater basin. He referred to questions about the process of relicensing the G.E. Vallecitos facility and reiterated his concerns about the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. He urged Council to carefully consider its actions on this property. Gary Purnell, 2472 Via de los Milagros, indicated Council needs to do its best to inform the citizens prior to the election of the pros and cons of the issues. Jeff Renholts, 7489 Aster Court, felt Council was moving very quickly on this issue. He indicated this bond issue is going to cost the City $380 million if you calculate 7% interest over thirty years. No one is talking about that. We don't know what is going on the property or how much it will cost to build and maintain those improvements. He felt $380 million was too much to pay for that property. Ms. Michelotti asked if staff had reviewed the development fee structure. Ms. Acosta said the original development fee proposal had included several of the facilities considered for this property, such as the lighted sports field. A full review will commence in January. Mr. Pico asked if staff knew the full debt service for the bonds. Pleasanton City Council 10 12/07/99 Minutes