Laserfiche WebLink
11. <br /> <br />"cost- effective" language of the Specific Plan/PUD condition could be <br />defined to mean potable water cost and/or Zone 7 agricultural water cost. <br />Both would be more expensive than using on-site groundwater, and the <br />documents intended a switch to reclaimed water even though it is more <br />expensive than groundwater, so long as it was feasible financially. <br />Reverse osmosis water at actual cost was not felt to be feasible. Any <br />change to the public play golf course would require City discretionary <br />approval. This should provide satisfactory protection unless the course <br />becomes uneconomic to operate and closes, with the property owner <br />abandoning the use and property. Staff believes such a scenario is very <br />unlikely. <br /> <br />Principles of Agreement: Incorporates elimination of recycled water line and allows use <br /> of groundwater on golf course. Allows development of "perimeter <br /> parcels" before golf course, and allows phasing of golf course in <br /> "economic and cost effective manner." Reuse of golf course is not <br /> specifically addressed. <br /> <br />Staff Recommendation: Staff is satisfied with the "reasonable efforts to develop the <br /> course in the initial phase" language in the Specific Plan/PUD conditions. <br /> Elaborating on when water is "cost-effective" for reclaimed water use can <br /> be done, and staffwould support language that relates potable water cost <br /> as "cost-effective." To provide for long-term maintenance of the golf <br /> course as privately owned open space is complex. Staffwould suggest <br /> leaving this issue to a later time and/or adding a City "first option" for <br /> receiving the course. <br /> <br />Parks <br /> <br />Issue: <br /> <br />Park improvement cap costs are too low, Western Area parks are too small, <br />the community park is too small, and park improvements are too late for new <br />residents' use. <br /> <br />Proposed Project: Caps are established at 85,000/acre for neighborhood parks and <br /> 120,000/acre for the community park. Western area parks are each 2.5 acres <br /> in size; the community park is 29.5 acres. The neighborhood parks on the <br /> Eastern Area are phased to be improved when about one-half its service <br /> population is occupied; the first Western Area park is to be improved when <br /> about 20% of this area is occupied with the second completed when 38% is <br /> occupied; and the community park is allowed to be developed early by the <br /> City (with repayment). <br /> <br />Alternatives: <br /> <br />Increase park improvement caps to $143,000/acre for neighborhood parks <br />and $160,000/acre for community parks. <br /> <br />Substantive Issues/Alternatives Page 12 June 9, 1999 <br /> <br /> <br />