CCMIN072999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Ayala referred to the suggestion that the City pays for the bypass road. There is too much money in the golf course already. She was convinced the City would pay for the road and infrastructure and there would be no reimbursement. She agreed with Mr. Tarver that if the citizens don't like the projects, the referendum process is still available. It appears all the Council still wants a golf course. Council must do what is fair for the Happy Valley residents. They have asked for the bypass road and Council has done what it could to make that happen. When the North Sycamore and Happy Valley Specific Plans were approved, Council acknowledged that in order to get a municipal golf course some development must occur in that area to pay for the infrastructure. She still believed solutions could be found if everyone is willing to give a little. At the same time, she did not want the City to pay for an individual's infrastructure costs, when that has never been done. It would be taking taxpayers' money to pay for someone else's water and sewer. If the developers are willing to pay those costs, that is their decision. Council can still review the New Cities project and she felt the process should proceed. Ms. Michelotti agreed that the City should not pay for the bypass road or infrastructure. Mayor Tarver believed Council was giving staff direction to pursue the development agreement. Ms. Ayala did not want a limit on payment for the infrastructure. She did not want the $1.2 million figure in the agreement. She supported having the developers construct the infrastructure. Mr. Roush felt the agreement the Mayor referred to is different that what was presented. The developers' proposed agreement allows construction of a project consistent with the specific plan. That means Council would approve a development agreement without having the PUD in front of it. If that is the case, staff could bring that back to Council by mid-September. If Council wants a development agreement which includes the PUD approval, it is questionable whether that can be done by November. Ms. Acosta did not think a development agreement that gives the assurances desired by the Happy Valley residents without a Council seeing the PUD is problematic. When density, growth management, etc. are considered, it is very difficult to draft an agreement with a plan to review. Ms. Michelotti felt that was with regard to the Summerhill project. The New Cities and TTK projects are all ready. Ms. Ayala felt staff would have to work with Summerhill to see if some conclusions could be reached that Council would accept in order to agree to the development agreement. Ms. Dennis had serious reservations about this. Other developers have projects Pleasanton City Council 12 07/29/99 Special Meeting