CCMIN072999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pico asked if staff wanted opinions on the various alternatives for the PUD. Mr. Swift assumed that since there were no comments, the staff recommendation was acceptable. Ms. Michelotti clarified that all this comes back. She wanted the road issue clarified and that involves working with Summerhill and Spotornos. Ms. Acosta said that would be part of the PUD. Ms. Ayala and Mayor Tarver wanted the growth management to be large project allocation rather than first-come, first-served. Ms. Michelotti clarified that there could be reallocation of units if necessary. Mr. Roush pointed out there is no development allocation for this particular PUD. Staff could draft a growth management agreement. Ms. Dennis asked for clarified whether the New Cities project would be part of the development agreement if it is not approved. Mr. Roush said the New Cities property is already annexed. If that project is approved do they have to have a development agreement. Ms. Acosta said New Cities wants a development agreement. It is easier to write because Council knows what the plan is. That is the only distinction between them and the Spotorno. The difference is there is no pre-annexationagreement. Mr. Swift said New Cities needs a development agreement to bind them to pay for the bypass road, etc. and because they think it is a help with CAPP. Ms. Ayala wanted to make sure the development agreement states the developer will construct the water and sewer infrastructure so Council doesn't have to consider any changes to the density, Ms, Dennis asked again why New Cities needs a development agreement, Ms, Acosta said because they think it will increase the chances of approval because with the agreement they are guaranteeing the water and sewer contributions, Mr, Pico felt that could be a condition of the PUD, .- Mr, Roush said a condition must have nexus, The things offered as part of the Pleasanton City Council 31 07/29/99 Special Meeting