SR 05:069 - Laserfiche WebLink

Accordingly, when the Bozorgzads raised the issue of mandating that the Bachs/Lambs reim- burse them for the private road at the Planning Commission public hearing, the Assistant City Attorney stated to the Planning Commission that there was already a recorded agreement dealing with reimbursement for the private road. The parties apparently dispute whether payment has been made under that agreement. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute themselves, then there are other more appropriate forums, e.g., the courts or in fact arbitration as mandated by the agree- ment, for resolving those disputes rather than looking to the City to resolve those disputes. As to reimbursement in general, state law does not require a city to mandate reimbursement be- tween developers/property owners. A city may require reimbursement when the first developer installs infrastructure that will benefit adjoining property owners if their property is developed in the future. However, some cities take the position that putting in the infrastructure is just the cost of developing first. Therefore, the City is under no legal obligation to mandate reimbursement in this situation, and as stated above, staff recommends that the City Council not address this situa- tion in the conditions of approval for the Bach/lamb project given the existence of a recorded agreement that already does so. Other Neighbor Comments Letters and email communications received by staff from Hossein and Mojgan Bozorgzad, Gail and Joel Olney, Jeff and Kristi May, Jill and Tony Battilega, Larry and Suzan Dingman, Linda Walton, Michael and Katherine Ferreira, Steven Liu and Jenny Wong, Shareef Mahdavi, and from Tom and Mary Greene were submitted to the Planning Commission with their packet. Comments covered the proposed project and the proposed sidewalk. Of the ten respondents, six supported the sidewalk. The remainder did not. The following neighbors were present were present at the public hearing and spoke on the pro- posal: Arend Verway (6080 Sycamore Terrace) expressed concerns of the proposed sidewalk be- cause of liability as well as the safety of children bicycling on the steep sidewalk on Sycamore Terrace. Dennis Hood (6067 Sycamore Terrace - home under construction) strongly opposed the sidewalk and was concemed about the security of his house, privacy, and the safety of his children if the sidewalk is installed, and noted that there were other trails nearby. He stated his support of the size and heights of the proposed homes. Jack Keane (417 Sycamore Road) expressed concern about police monitoring of the pro- posed sidewalk. He noted that there are already two pedestrian connections serving the North Sycamore Specific Plan area and that the proposed sidewalk would not be ADA compliant. SR 05:069 Page 9 of 15