CCMIN100201 - Laserfiche WebLink

provides a mechanism to fund the shortfall to mitigate the impact of development. He did not understand why the City had not exercised that option. He asked that Council not give up its ability to insure that development pays its way. He understood this is more complicated because of the limitations of SB 50 and the City's ability to require mitigation through fees or the denial of development approvals to make sure the infi'astmcture is in place. He believed the City was playing catch up by needing to approve new development in order to take care of impacts from previous development. He believed the Girl Agreement was part of that same cycle and we need to break out of that. Any agreement should not take the City out of the decision-making process; make sure there is a funding mechanism to pay for school facilities and necessary infrastructure; and if things don't work as projected, that there is a method of adjusting the fees to mitigate impacts or to reduce the development so we don't need the fees. He felt these were essential points. Mary Roberts, 1666 Vineyard Avenue, believed there had not been enough public heatings on this matter and there were too many closed sessions. She said the staff report was well-written and helped her to understand the issues. She felt the staff was very familiar with development agreements and that experience counts a great deal. Because of this, she did not want the City taken out of the process since it would then lose control. She said the control was a moratorium on these two builders; however, they have almost built all they want so it is a moot point. Going back to the old agreement could be counterproductive. She realized the District has had to adjust its assumptions over the years. She felt the cash flow document was wrong because it was based on incorrect demographic and economic assumptions. If businesses had adjusted their budgets with critical thinking skills instead of wishful thinking, we might not be in the situation we are in now. She was disturbed about people not signing the agreement, but she understands it. A developer would not build houses people are not going to buy. She was horrified to hear the suggestion of Ms. Ayala to change the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan. She worked on that very complex plan and felt any modification would take longer than a year and a half. Even if more housing units were added, if they are not built, it will not do the School District any good. Laura Danielson, 2349 Romano Circle, thanked Ms. Ayala for giving more time to review this agreement. She is a resident of the Ruby Hill area and has been waiting for Neal Elementary School and the improvements to Vineyard Avenue since 1998. The children from this area attend schools all over Pleasanton, which makes carpooling on Vineyard even worse. If there was a school they would not be driving so far. She implored Council to do whatever possible to review these agreements and make certain funding is available for Neal Elementary and the high school improvements. She did not like the idea of a possible bond measure. Julie Testa, 3494 Torlano Court, indicated many people were not comfortable with the drafting of the new agreement, but were optimistic and hopeful. She realized a lot of work went into this. She felt these agreements were like dominoes and all had to work together. When one fell down, like the economy, they all fell down. She believed that if we went forward with these agreements, they would not accomplish what is necessary. She felt there was a reason the original agreement was a three-way agreement with the City involved. If we move forward without all the pieces in place, it will not hold up. The schools will not get built and the high school expansions depend on backup money in the District. It will not be because development Pleasanton City Council 7 10/02/01 Minutes