My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN061615
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
CCMIN061615
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2015 3:09:47 PM
Creation date
7/29/2015 3:09:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/16/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Ordinance to accomplish the same thing. However, the ordinance specifically states that once a project <br /> has secured a Growth Management Agreement the project may be modified without affecting its <br /> allocation approval provided that no additional units are added. The ordinance also discusses that <br /> "extra" units resulting from the new project cannot be used on a subsequent project. While the <br /> ordinance does discuss preparing a growth management report to evaluate things like infrastructure <br /> and service constraints, this is a project with existing entitlements for 177 units. Therefore, using the <br /> Growth Management Ordinance is something that could potentially be done for future projects but not <br /> for this one. <br /> Councilmember Olson said he also struggled with the issue of water but that condition of approval 9, <br /> which requires the development to obtain approval from Zone 7 prior to recording the final map or <br /> obtaining a grading permit, building permit or utility extension approval to the site, makes it acceptable <br /> in his mind. <br /> Councilmember Pentin explained that he voted against the 177-unit project primarily because he did <br /> not support the lack of access to the arroyo and his feelings have not changed. He said he was <br /> bothered that future residents, who have no representation here now, will need to obtain a major PUD <br /> modification in order to obtain direct access to the arroyo in the future. He hoped that Parkside <br /> residents could explain their reluctance to allow this access, which they have themselves, noting that <br /> the concerns expressed by them previously related to an apartment complex containing renters. Given <br /> that these will be ownership units under the new project, he wondered if that attitude had changed at <br /> all. <br /> Vice Mayor Brown asked if the City Manager was aware of Zone 7 ever having denied a permit due to <br /> lack of water supply, while also demanding that existing residents reduce consumption by 25%. <br /> Mr. Fialho said he was not aware of this having occurred in the past, though he was not equipped to <br /> comment on what occurred during the 1976 drought. He did stress that Councilmember Narum and the <br /> Vice Mayor have been meeting with staff and Zone 7 regularly to discuss transparency regarding the <br /> water supply and the need to take action when appropriate to limit those connections. <br /> Councilmember Pentin asked and Mr. Fialho confirmed that Zone 7 has agreed to provide the city with <br /> 100% of its current and future water needs through build out, as reflected in the General Plan. He <br /> asked if the city's contract with Zone 7 allows the city to look elsewhere for water in the event that Zone <br /> 7 cannot or will not meet that demand. <br /> Mr. Fialho explained that Pleasanton is actually the only jurisdiction in the valley that does not have a <br /> contract with Zone 7. He said this was a strategic move to preserve the city's ability to secure additional <br /> water supplies, either with East Bay Municipal Utilities District or the San Francisco Public Utilities <br /> Commission. The obstacle, however, is that it is costly to secure the water contracts and make those <br /> connections with those agencies. <br /> Mayor Thome opened the public hearing. <br /> Kevin Ebrahimi, VP of Development with Summerhill Homes, thanked city staff for their responsiveness <br /> throughout the entire process. He stated that while Summerhill has obtained approval for a 177-unit <br /> rental project on this site, recent trends in the residential market have allowed them to explore the <br /> potential of for-sale townhomes in lieu of the previous project. He stressed that all of the design <br /> changes incorporated into the previous project to appease the concerns expressed by the Parkside <br /> neighborhood have been included, if not improvement upon, with this project. He also stressed that <br /> Summerhill designs all of its projects to meet current high efficiency standards, with many of those that <br /> were not available on a higher density apartment style project being incorporated here. This, coupled <br /> with the smaller project size, equates to an anticipated 57% reduction in water use over the previous <br /> project. In addition, the townhome style construction allows for individual metering of each unit making <br /> City Council Minutes Page 12 of 18 June 16,2015 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.