01 - Laserfiche WebLink

planning period, it is likely that four or five of these larger projects will come forward and that the City will be obligated to give them growth management approval. While not anywhere near the total number of RHNA, it could easily exceed the 350 units per year that staff and the Council have discussed before. Councilmembers McGovern and Sullivan stressed the importance of moving forward with establishing a growth management policy and adopting design guidelines before this lineup of future projects comes forward. Councilmember McGovern requested clarification on the condition of approval requiring an agreement between the applicant and Pleasanton Union School District. Mr. Fialho explained that the standard process is to vet the project before the Council and then require the agreement prior to issuance of building permits. He noted that PUSD is currently working on a new gift fee and, once identified, the developer and the district would be able to execute an agreement. The developer has indicated a willingness to pay both the statutory and supplemental fees, provided the fee is universally applied to all similar development projects. Staff's recommendation has been that the District publishes and adopts the fee so that as developments come forward, they pay a consistent fee. To speak directly to Councilmember McGovern's concern, the condition could be expanded to require that the applicant pay the published PUSD impact and supplemental fee amounts in place at the time of the building permit issuance. Councilmember Sullivan requested clarification on the relationship between the development agreement and Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval. Mr. Fialho explained that the development agreement memorializes the PUD, which has embedded conditions. Clarifying the conditions in reference to PUSD fees, as noted, locks in the policy assumption that an agreement will be reached. Councilmember McGovern asked whether it would be appropriate for the conditions to speak to the fact that the approved residential square footage takes the place of previously approved office and commercial square footage. Mr. Fialho said one could assume that, in constructing residential, at least on these sites, it takes the place of the assigned office and commercial capacity. It is a separate development agreement between the City and Hacienda Business Park that refers to one million additional square feet of commercial office and industrial space that needs to be amended to reflect the change in land use conditions being implemented. While this warrants further discussion by the Council, the conditions could be amended to specify the obvious. Mr. Dolan strongly recommended further clarifying that this does not occur until a building permit is issued. Councilmember McGovern supported the recommendation. Councilmember Sullivan recommended clarifying the conditions that speak to trash enclosures and related containers, specifically identifying the City's current practice of a three-bin system. Mayor Hosterman opened the public hearing. Rob Stoker, Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 104, said that what the Council had initially supported as a project that would provide middle class jobs for local workers seems to have evolved into a union versus non-union workers issue. The applicant has insisted that local contractors compete with those who do not pay area standard wages and to this point, has reached out only to non-union contractors. Local 104 and other unions expect that developers who do projects in their community demonstrate a commitment to that community and that they see the value in contractors who pay area standard wages and provide comprehensive benefit plans. It is expected that developers will seek to build more than City Council Minutes Page 6 of 13 April 17, 2012