My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN120495
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CCMIN120495
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:54:07 AM
Creation date
5/21/1999 7:44:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
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).
View images
View plain text
will be in place and those lots will then be eligible to be sold and built on in future years, so <br />staff projects those at 40 units per year in a different table. It takes many years to build out the <br />500-600 units of custom houses at 40-50 units per year. The developers are pleased they are <br />building them that fast. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr thought the allocation of 150 units a year was done because when Ruby Hill <br />got its financing for the project of that size, the bank had to be shown the developers had the <br />ability to sell. The number came more from the financing needs than from the growth <br />management program. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift indicated it was also the potential to sell large numbers of units to a separate <br />buyer, who would only buy it with the ability to be able to build. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver did not believe this process was working. Council wanted to get rid of <br />backlog and here we are, trying to put current projects into this year to pull permits because <br />there is space. We have three new applicants who have designed a project that is ready to go <br />and wants allocations from this year. There are people who have said they will build and have <br />not; yet they will not let go of their allocations. There is no truth in growth management that <br />allows us to say a project is ready to go, will pull their permits, so let them do it. That is the <br />objective of the program and it is not working. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked for clarification on when a project loses its allocation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift indicated there are two different programs, the modified program and the new <br />program. The modified program states a developer doesn't lose its units and can request where <br />they go. Council can put the units wherever they can be appropriately serviced. The new <br />program allows applicants to request discretio~tary approval to move units on two occasions and <br />after those two times, a request for roll-over will be treated like a new project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver referred to the Hacienda/Signature development which is asking for 46 more <br />permits in 1998, bringing the total for permits in 1998 to 146. He felt they should ask for the <br />remaining 46 units to move to 1999. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that is a request and Council has the discretion as to which year it puts <br />those 46 units that are being moved out of 1995. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked how you account for the variables in the market place and project <br />financing, for instance an apartment complex (which can't be phased). <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver felt this is a result of past approved projects that did not have financing in <br />place when they asked for growth management allocations. There are two things going on, <br />people with projects that can build now and people with speculation as to what they could do in <br />the future. We are contending with speculation and not with real projects, which is why we <br />keep rolling units over. <br /> <br />12/04/95 -12- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.