CCMIN062105 - Laserfiche WebLink

Vanessa Kawaihau, a Happy Valley resident, addressed Council regarding agenda item 4c and noted that she did not see the City's developer contribution of a half million dollars. She wondered if it was invested in an interest bearing account much like the New Cities contribution. She mentioned that when the tentative tract map for 'IrK was approved, it donated $400,000 to the City for Happy Valley infrastructure. She believed these funds were earmarked in the 2003 mid-term ClP for an underfunded water project. She asked if these funds should be reflected in this report? Mr. Roush said with respect to the 'IrK matter, this obligation is in a development agreement in terms of its payment of a number of different fees and pro-rata share of different improvements, and that obligation to pay does not arise until the timing of the final map. He noted that the property owner is attempting to market the property in order to complete the final map. The reason the City's contribution is not reflected in this particular report is because this report is for developers who are required to do this under AB 1600 and other statutes. The City's money with respect to the bypass read has been allocated and those funds earn interest. Ms. McGovern asked if interest earned on a specific Capital Improvement Program (ClP) account is allocated to that particular account so that it occurs additional dollars. Mr. Fialho said the latest ClP is put together in terms of the bypass read and it depends on the soume of funding. If the source of funding for example is a miscellaneous general fund supported fund project; the interest is accrued back into Fund Balance and is reapplied at the beginning of the year for allocation by the Council. Ms. McGovern asked if the developer donation by New Cities remained in that particular funding account. Mr. Fialho said yes. Mayor Hosterman referenced PSDR-233, Gary Yuke/Pacific Neon, for Larkspur Landing Home Suite Hotel, agenda item 6b supplemental, and asked staff to talk with the applicant about the design and see if there might be something more in keeping with the type of signage seen in Pleasanton. Her specific concerns were related to the lighting fixtures. Ms. McGovern referenced the Residential Density section of agenda item 6b and noted that bullet number two states that if a discussion of Policy X is not conducted by the City Council within a six-month period, the Commission recommends that Council consider it on a separate track from the General Plan Update process. She asked staff if Council would be discussing this matter prior to the six-month period? Mr. Fialho said yes. He believed that in the next several months, Council would be considering the entire Land Use element of the General Plan and in that context, this policy would be discussed. Mr. Brozosky asked if a formal appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision for PSDR- 233, Gary Yuke/Pacific Neon, for Larkspur Landing Home Suite Hotel was needed. Mr. Roush recalled that Mayor Hosterman did not request staff to discuss with the applicant a complete redesign. She requested that staff discuss the design with the applicant to keep the design uniform as seen throughout Pleasanton and, therefore, he did not consider her request a formal appeal. Pleasanton City Council 3 06/21/05 Minutes