My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 01/23/1991
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
PC 01/23/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/29/2017 4:17:47 PM
Creation date
6/2/2005 11:42:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/23/1991
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 01/23/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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 />5. COImliss;oner Hovingh noted that new regulations as to disability have recently come out and wondered if <br />the City has incorporated these regulations. Mr. Swift indicated the City is aware of this matter and has <br />incorporated the new rules. <br /> <br />6. Commissioner Hoyingh noted that Edem Kuevor, 8 senior at Foothill High hes recently received a $1,000 <br />scholarship from Livenmore Labs for writing the winning essay on the contributions of Martin Luther King, <br />Jr. He suggested that the City might further wish to publicly recognize her achievement. <br /> <br />OLD BUSINESS - PUllLle HEARINGS <br /> <br />Tract 6282. StBDLes Ranch <br />Application of the Ccu\ty of Al-a. to SlDtivide .. approxi_teLy 21.33 acres into 126 single-I.ily <br />detached lots, 26 paired single-f_ily lots and a 2.1 acre addition to _ Park located between Uest Las <br />Positas Blvd. and [irbldy Street. Zoning for the property is AD (Plamed unit Devel_t) - Nedi... <br />Density Residential District. <br /> <br />Mr. Swift presented the staff report recommending approval of Tract 6282 subject to the conditions of the <br />staff report. He noted that a noise study was done and delivered to the Commission today. He aLso noted <br />that Condition 10 and 11 have been modified to say "deveLoper'. instead of the "County of Alamedall. He also <br />called attention to a letter of support from Betty Dawes. <br /> <br />Commissioner Michelotti asked if the projected price of 5141,910 is intended to be at buildout. Mr. Swift <br />replied they have no control of the fee, but it is based on the estimated construction cost. The cost per <br />unit is estimated at 585 per sq. ft. <br /> <br />Commissioner Horan requested clarification from Mr. Swift regarding Condition 22 which addresses whether the <br />County can repay a second mortgage and sell the house on the open market. Mr. Swift said that this has been <br />modified to protect the City from a possible sale of the units by the County. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh inquired as to whether it is more appropriate for the developer or the applicant to <br />install the landscape for the detached units, as noted in the staff report. Mr. Swift replied that the PUD <br />gave the County the option of whether or not they wish to install the landscape. The applicant has chosen <br />to install the landscape. <br /> <br />--- <br /> <br />In regard to Condition 11 Commissioner Hovingh inquired as to who would decide whether the County was <br />negligent or not. Mr. Swift replied that the clause can be removed by the Commission should they not find <br />it appropriate. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued as to landscaping of the duets. Chainman Mahern noted that the applicant was given the <br />option of whether or not to landscape them. <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk asked for clarification regarding Condition 15. He also noted that Condition 32 should <br />say PacBell, not AT&T. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING ~S OPENED. <br /> <br />Adolph Martinelli, 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, represented the County of Alameda. He stated they concur <br />with staff recommendations except for a few clarifications. He explained that the County's intent is to <br />keep the 26 duet-style units permanently affordable and reaching the same income levels as specified in the <br />contract. The provision that sets the interest rate at market rate for the silent second was placed in the <br />affordable housing program at the recommendation and direction of their attorney. In the event that a unit <br />sells at market rate and not at an affordable rate that would preclude a gift of public funds to a private <br />individual. He noted that large numbers of people are inquiring about the units and their qualifications. <br /> <br />Commissioner Horan discussed at length with Mr. Swift and Mr. Martinelli as to who has the first right of <br />refusal. Commissioner Horan was concerned that in the final analysis the County could sell the units and <br />felt the City was unprotected. Mr. Martinelli felt that protection for this concern can be written into the <br />contract; in fact, he felt that the City could do the same as Commissioner Horan feared the County might do. <br />Mr. Swift assured Commissioner Horan that the contract can be written to protect the program and the City. <br />Lengthy discussion ensued as to whether the wording of the conditions should be changed in regard to <br />Commissioner Horan1s comments. <br /> <br />Commissioner Horan continued to express great concern that the City might need further protection should the <br />County not follow through on their contract. He wanted the contract to reflect that if the County made <br />money from the sale of the units that it should go back into affordable housing and the same should apply to <br />the City. Mr. Martinelli said he was comfortable with rewording the language to reflect that concern. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />MINUTES PLANNING ClMIISSIOII JANUARY 23. 1991 PAGE Z <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.