PC 11/13/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

She noted for the record that the developer, the school district and the City should work closely to assess the impact on the residential development and also to attempt to off-set any impact fees. Discussion ensued as to what type of fees the developer would have to pay. Staff indicated that the applicant would not have to pay any fees because they are putting in low-income housing in the Robertson development; as a result they get credit that is applicable for other acreage in the park. The next time they come in with an office development they would receive the use of credit, which would be computed on the basis of the square footage of that development. Mr. Iserson further clarified this issue for the Commission. Chairman Mahem asked staff whether there has been any consideration or move by the City to actually look at the Hacienda Business Park PUD to start making provision for the land use change. She questioned whether the City has looked at the PUD to see whether there is land available there for a park or public institution. Ms. Watt replied that the City is defmitely looking at North Pleasanton for areas that could be suitable for parks, whether community or neighborhood parks. The City is trying to determine through a survey done by Parks and Recreation exactly the size of the park and the facilities needed that would serve both residents and business community. Chairman Mahem suggested that staff may wish to look at the General Plan and PUD and identify what type of parks, schools, and infrastructure that may need to be geared toward residents rather than office space. Ms. Watt reiterated that this is the reason that the developer, school district and City should work closely together. Further discussion ensued regarding the need for infrastructure. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Warren Sattler, 4309 Hacienda Drive, Prudential Insurance Co, stated he has read staff conditions and would like to request modification to two conditions of approval. He called attention to page 24 - LA. I. - regarding the minimum density requirement that the density for each successive project for the 79 acres shall not fall below 15 units to the acre. He said they do not intend to restrict themselves to achieving the 15 units to the acre. He felt the language condition was a good intention by the staff, but said it would not work for them or eventually for the City. Their hope is to balance out the rental housing (the Spanish Oaks Project) which is 32 units to the acre, with for sale housing. He would like for the condition to read: "For land other than that utilized by PUD-81-30-53D, the average density should not be more than 15 units to the acre", meaning that some projects may be less dense and some more dense, but all would be at least eight units to the acre. Minutes Plsnning Commission November 13, 1991 Page 22