My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 11/04/81
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1981
>
PC 11/04/81
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:15:41 PM
Creation date
4/30/2007 8:49:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/4/1981
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 11/04/81
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
Mr. Levine asked the Commission if they were recommending that apart- <br />ments with 25 or less would have to pay fees. It was determined <br />all projects would pay fees except 'affordable or subsidized' <br />housing projects. <br />Phasing <br />Art Dunkley, Castlewood Properties, 205-F Main Street, said that a <br />recent project of his was held up financially because of eight units <br />not having RAP approval. <br />Commissioner Wilson gave an example of 34 units having approval for <br />25 that by the time you got off-sites in you would be into the next <br />year and would carryover, that would be a form of phasing. <br />Mr. Dunkley indicated that if a project were broken up and phased <br />coming under the required number for exemption, no one would apply for <br />RAP. <br />Commissioner Lindsey said that that has to be restricted to avoid <br />the problem but that there should be a bottom number. <br />Commissioner Lindsey said he doesn't want a person coming in with <br />25 units one year, 25 units the next year and 25 units the following <br />year with each p~iase being exempt from RAP. <br />Mr. Harris stated that in viewing the overall conceptual plan it <br />would be pretty easy to determine if someone were trying to circum- <br />vent the intent of the ordinance. <br />Art Dunkley suggested four year phasing. <br />Commissioner Wilson asked what happened to one half acre lot exemptions <br />or 20,000 sq. ft. lot exemptions. Commissioner Lindsey indicated <br />he thought this would fall into the under 25 unit category. <br />Mr. Swift indicated that Pestana has 40 lots (all over 20,000 sq. ft.). <br />Commissioner Lindsey asked the outcome if someone came in with 50 <br />20,000 sq. ft. lots -- would they be exempt. <br />Ted Fairfield again talked about subdivision map submittal after RAP <br />approval. He said he is opposed to this especially in view of the <br />conditions imposed on project approval, i.e., typical statement 'City <br />guarantees no sewer capacity.....' He said an applicant really has <br />to hurry to meet spring construction to start and it takes time to <br />get the tentative map out of the way. <br />Mr. Levine indicated that this was the last control the City had over <br />a project because final map approval is a ministerial action. <br />-6- <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.