01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Lowell presented the staff report, stating that the applicant is requesting approval of a Development Agreement to vest the development approvals (PUD and Tentative Tract Map) of the previously approved Austin project. The project consists of eight single-family residential lots and one 22 acre parcel of open space to be dedicated to the city. The Development Agreement contemplates that the agreement would be in effect for a ten-year period until 2024 with an option for one five-year extension. The parcel's current entitlements, approved in 2006 and slated to expire June 8, 2016, allow for eight custom home lots and provides for a 35 foot strip of land to serve as a buffer between the open space and Jorgenson Lane neighbors. The property owners do not wish to file for a Final Map at this time and so are pursuing a Development Agreement to extend the life of their Tentative Map and PUD plan, all the conditions of which would remain in full force and effect. While the applicant benefits from the ability to extend their entitlements for at least another ten years, there are also direct benefits to the city. The Development Agreement provides for the dedication of the 22-acre open space parcel to occur now rather than in the future or not at all, and offers the city the control and ability to ensure that all stakeholder concerns are considered. The Development Agreement would also give the city control of the current easement serving the Segundo and Messa parcels, which could be used to augment the Alviso Adobe Community Park site and perhaps provide an alternate means of access to the Castleridge site. Mr. Lowell noted one minor revision to the Development Agreement presented in the Agenda packet. He presented a slide outlining the modified language to Section 3.08, which further clarifies disclosure requirements by making clear to future owners what uses could occur on the adjacent open space parcel. These include uses consistent with and pertinent to open space use, as determined by the city of Pleasanton, and may include staging area, parking and restrooms. Councilmember Brown asked whether overnight camping would be restricted in that area. Mr. Lowell said it is not appropriate to address in the Development Agreement but would be more suitable to discuss at the task force level. Councilmember Brown asked and Mr. Lowell confirmed that all property owners adjacent to the 35-foot buffer strip have agreed upon and accepted this feature. Mr. Lowell explained that it was developed as a condition of approval in 2006 in response to a request from these property owners. Mr. Lowell stated that notice of the proposed Development Agreement was provided to all property owners and residents within a 1,000 foot radius and staff has received no comments on the matter. Staff therefore recommends that the Council consider introducing the ordinance approving the Development Agreement, as revised, between the city and the Austin's. Councilmember Brown asked whether the cattle fencing have been installed yet. Mr. Lowell could not say, though again noted that all conditions of approval from 2006 remain in full force and effect. He added that while the Austin's are obligated to install the fencing, it remains unclear who will be responsible for its maintenance. Councilmember Brown asked how the open space area would be monitored for safety, both personal and fire. Mr. Lowell said it is city property and would be treated as such in that regard. The general expectation would be police response, with the potential for mutual aid through EBRPD or the Sheriffs Department. Mr. Fialho added that the site is a bit different from but not unlike Augustine Bemal Park, which is supervised by the city through regular maintenance, signage, and some police detail that patrols the City Council Minutes Page 13 of 16 July 15, 2014