CCMIN061698 - Laserfiche WebLink

and one-story homes. Second is the view corridor concept. The Specific Plan mentioned allocating 22 homes in exchange for the Spotorno's dedicating five acres of open space. He said 22 homes divided into 28 acres yield, 1.7 acre per lot. He requested that Council not adopt the view corridor. He said there are only three people that would benefit from the view corridor. But they do not want the view corridor in exchange for six additional homes. Ms. Michelotti understood the Planning Commission had recommended a floor area ratio of 25 % for one-story homes. Mr. Rasmussen said that is correct. Roger Smith, 6344 Alisal Street, addressed issues 1, 2, and 8 related to housing density and issue 10 related to the cost of water and sewer. The General Plan represents a compromise between the residents that wanted one unit per five acres and those that wanted higher density. The General Plan at this point should not be the starting point for a new round of negotiations. He wanted to stay with the one unit per two acres that was negotiated. He did not understand the density bonus concept. The General Plan provides two acre density inside the urban growth boundary line and zero density outside the urban growth boundary line. The Specific Plan provides a 33 % density bonus for those residents who agreed to conform to requirements of the General Plan. He thought the urban growth boundary line restricted development on the hillsides and wanted to know why the Spotornos were being allowed to build six extra homes in the flat area. The flat area is 33 acres, which permits the construction of 16 homes under the General Plan. Regarding issue No. 8, he does not want any additional houses on the hillside. The General Plan gives A1 Spotorno the right to build 75 units on 15 acres on the upper site. Summerhill Homes (the proposed developer for A1 Spotorno) claims it cannot build 75 units on the upper site. If that is the case, then only build 69 units. Everyone that lives in the Happy Valley area who will use the golf course will have to look at six additional homes on the side of a hill that is outside the urban growth boundary line. As to issue No. 10, the cost of providing city water and sewer to the Happy Valley area is more than $45,000 per home. For many current residents this lump sum is unaffordable. Current residents should be treated different from developers, who have the proceeds from home sales to pay their fair share. One year ago 85 residents of Happy Valley signed a pre-annexation agreement and presented it to the City Council. Included in the agreement was a specific proposal regarding water and sewer costs. He felt this was ignored by staff. The residents therefore appealed to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission voted in favor of placing a cap on what existing residents would have to pay. A cost sharing formula could be developed that is legal and equitable for existing and new residents. He suggested that the City finance the infrastructure, have the major developers pay the hook-up cost and their pro-rata share of infrastructure at the time of development, and have existing residents pay for hookups amortized over twenty years (plus interest) or pay for the infrastructure when the property is sold. These suggestions are consistent with staff's alternative three for equal cost sharing and a combination of staff's alternatives two and three. He asked that Council make the water and sewer costs affordable. Pleasanton City Council 8 06/16/98 Minutes