My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 02/14/96
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
PC 02/14/96
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2013 11:52:26 AM
Creation date
2/23/2005 3:33:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/14/1996
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 2/14/96
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh and Chainnan Lutz noted that they spoke with Mr. Tom Allen. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED <br /> <br />Mark Sweeney, 4309 Hacienda Drive #558, represented Prudential Insurance of America. Mr. <br />Sweeney advised that due to poor market conditions, high fees, quality construction standards, <br />and low income requirements, Spanish Oaks became economically infeasible to build. He also <br />commented that there is very little of the high density residential zoning in Pleasanton, and even <br />less in the proposed General Plan update. <br /> <br />Mr. Sweeney stated that there are 598 units in Pleasanton with rent restrictions, 147 units are due <br />to have the low-income restriction expire within the next year. The proposed project would add <br />back 116 of those units for another 25 years. <br /> <br />Regarding the park situation, this project has been conditioned with a high park fee and the <br />applicants have not sought to lower that fee, Prudential has offered land for sale to the City at <br />below-market rates and has held land off the market in the hopes of the City being able to secure <br />a community park. <br /> <br />The property owner is the Prudential Insurance Co. and is co-applicant with A. G. Spanos <br />Corporation. <br /> <br />Mr. Sweeney had a few comments regarding the conditions: <br /> <br />Condition 5b: He thought the project would already have been given growth <br />management. <br /> <br />Condition 6: This will be discussed by Mr. Barber. <br /> <br />Condition 21: Agree with staff that this condition is inappropriate. <br /> <br />Condition 55: They hope this condition intends to say that no other access to this project <br />is allowed on Owens Drive. They do hope they will be allowed driveway access for the <br />remainder portion of this parcel on Owens Drive at a future date. <br /> <br />In response to Commissioner Hovingh, Mr. Sweeney advised that their project has taken the <br />same 462 units from the Spanish Oaks project and lowered the density by developing 20 acres <br />instead of 14 acres. <br /> <br />Commissioner Barker noted that the project has a number of nice amenities. She inquired if they <br />would seek a 50 percent rebate on park fees. Mr. Sweeney advised that is not the issue on the <br />park fees. Their position is the $6/sq. ft. in bonds being assessed. These capital improvements <br />benefit the entire community. He noted that Prudential is selling this land for considerably less <br />than what they could sell it for "for-sale housing," They would like to be recognized for <br />community improvements to the freeway improvements, fire and water system improvements and <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />February 14, 1996 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.