CCMIN011580 - Laserfiche WebLink

list developers in discretionary categories under the RAP. This high ranking is based on paper plans and unproven projects, in the face of high-quality homes, tennis courts, pools, clubs, and other improvements in the ground, constructed by priority list developers. Mr. Oakes stated that completion of this project at this time would not only benefit the residents in the area and the City as a whole but would reaffirm the Cit ' City's com~itment to developers who relied on the y s contract obligations established in the 1972 settlement agreement. In the language of the agreement, "ma" the City "shall" -- not y -- issue sewer connection permits in accordance with the priority lists, and recognition of this continuing City obligation is required to alleviate the continuing burden of carrying the costs of improvements constructed years ago. Mr. Oakes stated that approval of this project will be consistent with the goals of RAP ~nd will permit the completion of a high quality project. 79-16 ~adorValley Investors, Tract 3148 ~,~r. George Oakes, representing Amador Valley Investors, stated the remaining 34 units of Tract 3148 (23 received RAP approval in 1978) will complete this 57- unit development. He stated this is a single-family development with many features he felt should receive special consideration, such as lot size, open cul-de-sacs, and design. He reviewed the improvements already completed in the project; the park area, bike paths, tennis courts, pools, cabana club, as well as public improve- ments, emphasizing the merits of Brockton Street. Mr. Oakes reviewed the bridge improvements at West Las Positas, and the additional landscaping. Mr. Oakes stated that Tract 3148 is a high quality project and that he is ready to complete the remaining units as soon as RAP approval, and sewer and building permits are avail- able. Mr. Oakes stated that based on the developer's good faith and the terms of the 1972 Settlement Agreement, the excellent project, and the fact that the area residents are a~ious to see completion of the secondary access that will come with this project, he urged Council to allow completion of Tract 3148. 79-10 Castlewood Proper.t.ies, PUD. 79-9 Mr. Art Dunkley, representing Castlewood Properties, stated the early completion of this proposed development was in the best interests of the citizens of Vintage Hills and especially the improvements of the Pico/Vineyard Avenue intersection at the new shopping center area. He cited traffic reports that express concern for traffic safety on Pico and Vineyard Avenues and urged Council to take this into consideration in their review of the RAP process. Mr. Dunkley stated that with regard to points, he felt the overall design of this project was sound and unique, and he requested an additional 5 points for Design. He stated he felt he should receive 4 points for Large Lots. Mr. Dunkley reviewed the massive improvements planned on Pico and Vineyard Avenues relative to this proposed project and asked for 20 points for Dedications/Completions category (15 points for Pico Avenue, and 5 points for Vineyard Avenue improvements). Mr. Dunkley requested a total of an additional 14 points for Castlewood Properties proposed project. 79-11 Ponderosa~ Tract 4432 Mr. Rick Angrisani, representing Ponderosa Homes, after review of the staff report, requested consideration for additional points in the categories of Design and Traffic Circulation. He stated that the City of Pleasanton has a definite need for large houses on large lots as is proposed in this project. He stated that staff's method of assigning points to the Design section actually penalized them in that only half the points are awarded for building architecture and that in a large lot subdivision on a flat section of land, there is no way to earn maximum points under site layout. Mr. Angrisani stated he felt building architecture 2. 1/15/80