CCMIN031803 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Swirl said there had been a number of concerns. The height of the first tier of lots on the other side of the open space area was an issue. The final grades in that area are the same or lower than the original PUD. Any changes have been reviewed by the neighborhood in great detail. Ms. Ayala wanted to make certain that staff was comfortable that the current plan achieves the same goals that were desired in the first PUD which included custom lots. Mr. Swirl said yes. Ms. Ayala asked if there was a problem with enough water for the project. Mr. Swirl said there is no water problem because Greenbriar has now built the water tank that serves this project. The golf course is irrelevant to the water for this project. Ms. Hosterman felt that if the City was going to adjust the growth management allocations to accommodate a developer, then the developer should increase its contributions towards infrastructure costs. She asked what the square footage and selling price might be for the proposed homes? Mr. Swift said the homes would be in the mid-3,000 sq. fi. range. Regarding price, comparable homes in the nearby New Cities project sold in the $1 to $1.5 million range. That when the market was very good. Ms. Hosterman asked how shares of infrastructure costs were calculated? In an area like Happy Valley sewer and water are necessary but there is also the need for a bypass road. Mr. Swift said the New Cities project is paying for infrastructure that is above and beyond the original approval. It is not directly related to its own project. This project is in the North Sycamore Specific Plan and has a share of the infrastructure for North Sycamore area, including Sycamore Road, widening parts of Sunol Boulevard, a traffic signal, the water tank on the Lund property, the pump station, etc. This project is paying its fair share and more. New Cities is a funding developer, which means it pays for more than its share of infrastructure and will be reimbursed by later developers. Once ail the funding is done for this project, it has agreed to pay for a portion of the infrastructure that serves the Happy Valley area, but not related to this project at all. That is the $500,000 noted in the proposed agreement. Originally, it was a "major project" linked to the golf course development, and that was changed to a "first come/first served" project. Now it has asked to be a "major project" again. The number of units per year has not changed in either category. Ms. Hosterman asked the developer to consider contributing a considerable amotmt more than proposed. Mr. Brozosky said the funding agreement and extension expire in September 2003, but he noticed that the growth management resolution had no termination clause. He asked if the City Pleasanton City Council 8 03/18/03 Minutes