Laserfiche WebLink
it was going to be getting in the fu'st place. She asked how this could be prevented from <br />happening. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush reiterated that at some point there would have been a design of the <br />homes that would have been reviewed and approved, at either stafflevel or the Planning <br />Commission or City Council level, and that is what would be built. Typically, ifa project <br />is sold from one developer to another, the City does not get involved with the financial <br />aspects of it. What the City does require is that whoever owns the property, when it <br />comes to the final map they would be required to provide the requisite bonds and <br />insurance so that we know at least the public improvements would get in. <br /> <br /> Ms. Hosterman relayed her experience in meeting with Centex representatives <br />when they had finalized their development project in Livermore. They had a grand <br />opening for their zero energy homes. She had attended the grand opening and was very <br />impressed. Although she was not on the Council at the time, she was glad that Centex <br />was going to be doing a considerable amount of development in the Vineyard Corridor <br />and asked a representative from Centex if he would put together a similar site in <br />Pleasanton so that people would be able to gleam some idea of what a zero energy home <br />would look like. Again, she expressed her concern that the City does not have uithnate <br />control over these development projects. <br /> <br /> Going back to the school impact fee agreements, Ms. Ayala could not recall what <br />was spelled out in the development agreements for the Vineyard Corridor developers. <br />She asked if the wording "gift agreement" is what is being used. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush stated no. He believed the language in that agreement states that the <br />property owners or their successors would agree to enter into the appropriate agreement <br />to mitigate their impact on the schools. Currently, the way it is implemented is through <br />the gift agreement. The wording "gift agreement" is not used and the wording is more <br />generic than that as the program may change over time. We did not want to lock into a <br />particular agreement or program because it may change. Also, we wanted to leave the <br />school district some wiggle room. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala noted that the City is not 100 percent covered and as we are all aware, <br />these projects are all sold. Therefore, we will have to keep working with the developers <br />to encourage them to help us get the facilities needed in this town. <br /> <br />Mayor Pico opened the public hearing for comments. <br /> <br /> Chris Schlies, 699 Peters Avenue, representing both the applicant Northstar <br />Construction and the property owners, the Chrismans, addressed Council with regard to <br />the merits of the project. His understanding was that the PUD approval of this project <br />contemplated the map before Council and nothing more. His clients have not made any <br />significant deviation from the PUD and in preparing and submitting this map. He directed <br />the Council's attention to several points. Regarding whether this map is appropriate or <br />not, there are two concerns: one related to the dirt and thc grading and the other related to <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 16 09/16/03 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />