Laserfiche WebLink
37 <br /> <br />C/) AP-93-6/Tentative Tract Man 6618. Boulevard Develonment/MoHer Properties <br />Appeal by the City Council of a decision of the planninp Commition approvln_~ an <br />application for tentative map approval to subdivide a 198 acre site into 99 single-fami!_v <br />r~idential lots and six remainder oareels consistin~ of 163.5 acres of o_nen snace. located <br />at 5466-5710 Footh|!! Road. Zonlnp for the nronertv is PUD {Planned Unit Development) - <br />Rural/Low Density Residential/A_m-iculture. and the West Foothill Road Corridor Overlay <br />District. (SR93:381) <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift presented the staff report. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pieo asked if staff had prepared a fiscal analysis of this project's impact on the City <br />and was the cost of maintaining the open space and undergrounding the utilities considered. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift indicated no written report had been prepared, but based on staff's experience <br />with other projects, the revenue generated by this project, compared to the cost of service, <br />shows a positive return in the short term. One cannot say what the long term effect would be. <br />Mr. Swift further stated that the cost of undergrounding utilities is paid for by the developer and <br />the cost of maintaining open space would be significant if the City pays for it rather than the <br />owners. As the project is currently proposed, there is no cost to the City. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico indicated his understanding that it costs $40,000 a year to maintain open space. <br />Is the City looking at a special assessment of perhaps $500 per parcel? He was concerned that <br />this would be viewed as equivalent to a Mello-Roos District and future landowners would come <br />back to Council complaining. He was concerned about proceeding without a complete fiscal <br />impact report. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis inquired about acceptance of dedicated land from the homeowners rather than <br />from the developer. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift indicated the potential easement is for a public access road to Tehan Canyon. <br />The alternative is still available to accept fee title to all the open space, but the City would then <br />be obligated to maintain the open space and would be liable for anything that occurred on the <br />property, instead of just on the proposed trail. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico suggested the developer establish a trust for maintenance of the property. <br /> <br /> (It was determined to be infeasible to impound the araount of money necessary to <br />generate $40,000 a year in interest.) <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr indicated the property owners would probably want to limit public access to <br />the trail system only. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico inquired about the status of the Presley project and whether a separate water <br />tank would be needed for the Moller project. <br /> <br />09/21/93 7 <br /> <br /> <br />