Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Russo pointed out that Exhibit A of the Term Sheet specified that the <br />developers of the private parcels would provide a number of amenities for the City. He <br />referred to the extension of Valley Avenue to the terminus of Case and Junipero. He <br />asked about the water and sewer connections and if they were covered by the <br />development fees. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said all infrastructure to serve the two development sites would be <br />conditions of the projects. So the streets, water, sewer, storm drains and some off-site <br />infrastructure would be conditions of the development. <br /> <br /> Mr. Russo asked for clarification of Section 3.6 of the Term Sheet which requires <br />Pleasanton to find a bidder and to ensure that the bidder pays $50 million by June 30, <br />2000. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said it is not likely that any high bidder will pay $50 million without <br />some approval beyond what is in Exhibit A. Council would have to know what kind of <br />development is proposed and grant approval at some level for that project. What level of <br />approval is unknown. It could be as general as a Specific Plan and a Development <br />Agreement or it could be more precise. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver believed the process and timing would be to allow a bidder to be <br />comfortable paying that much money and to know it would not lose the money due to any <br />other actions necessary to entitle the development of the property. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked if the entitlements granted by Council to provide a sufficient <br />comfort level for the high bidder would be subject to a referendum. Would a future <br />action be subject to a referendum? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said it depends on what type of entitlement is given. Staff is <br />anticipating that bidders will want protection from future discretionary actions of the <br />Council that would be subject to a referendum. Exhibit A includes provision that Council <br />would enter into a Development Agreement and a structure of approvals that would make <br />subsequent discretionary approvals, such as a tentative map, design review, etc. be <br />administrative actions rather than legislative. There would still be a public hearing <br />process, but the decision would not necessarily be subject to a referendum. That would <br />all be considered with the bidder's proposal. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver asked if Mr. Russo favored a simple majority or a 2/3 vote for <br />public uses. <br /> <br /> Mr. Russo said he preferred a simple majority, but did not care to spend money on <br />any use away from the subject property. <br /> <br /> Gene Finch, 4847 Drywood, said he did not support Measure I. He felt many <br />people in Pleasanton do not have adequate information. He believed it would mean more <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 7 02/15/00 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />