CCMIN021500 - Laserfiche WebLink

congestion on freeways and city streets. He asked people to consider that in addition to the cost of the bond measure, the citizens will have to pay for the millions in infrastructure and costs of construction of the public facilities, the ongoing maintenance of the facilities, the loss of development fees and the loss of tax revenue from residential and commercial properties that will not be built. Ms. Ayala asked staff to address the statement that development would not go through the usual planning process. Mr. Swift said the commercial portion will go through the same development review process as any other commercial property in the City. A specific plan must be adopted, a development plan will be required, etc. This will probably be done on a fast- track basis, but this project has been in the process for many years and all issues related to possible uses have been identified. The same thing applies to the residential area. The normal City review process will be employed and there will be a fast-track for that area as well. Future uses of the publicly owned property (430 acres) would have to go through the same reviews normally expected, plus an extra step of receiving voter approval. There would be a specific plan, Park and Recreation Commission review, Planning Commission review, City Council review, and finally voter approval. Ms. Michelotti referred to the long range plan for public uses and asked if that would require one vote of the public or would each use that was proposed require a separate vote? Mr. Swift indicated the Task Force and ballot language state that a master plan would be created and go to a vote before any of the elements of the master plan could go forward. For example, the master plan could provide for a lighted sports park, but the design and elements of the park would go to an approval process through the Park and Recreation Commission and City Council. Whether the final plan has to go to another vote is undecided. That determination would be part of the master plan. Mayor Tarver referred to the comment about the loss of development fees and asked staff to clarify what development fees are actually used for and whether residential development is a cost to the City in the long run. Ms. Ayala also questioned Mr. Bouchard's comment about the number of residential units being less than half the homes originally proposed for the property. Mr. Bouchard believed this related to the number of homes approved under the County plan compared to what is in the project Specific Plan. He agreed it was not less than half. Ms. Ayala urged Mr. Bouchard to review the question and answer fact sheet prepared by staff. Pleasanton City Council 10 02/15/00 Minutes