CCMIN031803 - Laserfiche WebLink

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS Item 6a(1) Funding and Growth Management Agreements Reallocation of Growth Management Units in 2004 (SR 03:067) with New Cities Development~ Michael Roush presented the staff report. Item 6a(2) PUD-97-12-3M/Vesting Tentative Map 7193 Request to extend the PUD development plan and vesting September 15~ 2003. (SR 03:064) tentative map approvals to Brian Swift presented the staff report. Mr. Campbell referred to the difficulties in negotiating for the original fees to be paid and asked what caused the difficulties. Mr. Roush believed Mr. Campbell was referring to the contribution requested from all the developers for the infrastructure costs in the Happy Valley/Sycamore area. There were many discussions to determine the fair share for the various developers. The ultimate conclusion was that New Cities would pay 36-37% of the cost of the improvements if the initial annexation were approved. That equaled just over $500,000. A development agreement was prepared and if the annexation had been approved, New Cities would have paid the contribution. Once the annexation failed, New Cities no longer felt it was necessary to have the development agreement, which included the contribution, and there was no way the City could condition the approval of the 48-unit project to require payment of the approximately $500,000. The current offer of $500,000 is not based on any condition of the PUD. Ms. Ayala referred to the growth management agreement and asked if all the units were to be production homes. She had remembered that some were to be custom homes. Mr. Roush believed all were production homes. If that is not correct, the pertinent paragraphs of the agreement can be changed to indicate which lots are custom. For growth management purposes, there is basically no difference except that for custom lots, the developer must have completed the infrastructure for the custom lots in order to use the growth management allocations. Mr. Swift said there were a number of lots in the original PUD that could have been custom lots because of the grading. That grading plan has been changed. There is no restriction in the PUD that prevents custom homes from being built. Ms. Ayala remembered that there had been concern from the adjacent neighborhood about the pads required for production houses. Pleasanton City Council 7 03/18/03 Minutes