CCMIN031594 - Laserfiche WebLink

There being no further testimony, Mr. Tarver declared the public hearing closed. Ms. Mohr believed that the Signature project offers a benefit to the City. The City's well-being has been closely tied to the sucx, ess of Hacienda. It was not to anybody' s benefit to have the property in Hacienda sit empty. She also believed the Chu project was important for the school site. She supported Option E of staff recommendation. Ms. Dennis also supported Option E. She believed that the citizens of Pleasanton want to retire the backlog and place it out in future years and to be conservative on new projects. She felt that the Signature Properties project was worthy of growth management. She concluded by stating that this project will enhance the potential for retaining businesses in PleasanWn. Mayor Tarver did not support Option E. He was concerned that a sewage capacity shorffall could cause the City to be in violation of the Water Quality Control Board during a wet winter, with water shortages, with transportation and with maintenance of the backlog. He felt that Council should be considering how the City can sustain what it has and how it will service the new growth. Mayor Tarver believed that the City should approve or allocate no more than the 650 total units until the backlog is retired or until the infrastructure problems are solved. Mr. Pico was concerned about sustainable growth. He did not believe that the City would be able to continue to provide the level of services (water, sewer, transportation, etc.) to the existing residents. He did not support Option E. Ms. Scfibner believed Council should be flexible and current technology for water conservation has improved. She believed the Signature project meets the needs for the community. California is losing business partly due to the cost of housing and Hacienda will have an advantage for securing new business. It was moved by Ms. Scribner, and seconded by Ms. Dennis, that Resolution No. 94-31, be adopted, approving growth management approvals for new projects as follows: Signature Properties (Hacienda) - 88 in 1994, 108 in 1995, 100 in 1996, 100 in 1997 and 100 in 1998; Chu Properties (Garden Village) - 55 in 1997 and 24 in 1998; and establishing a growth management fee of $2300/unit for units built in 1994, $2400/unit in 1995, $2500/unit in 1996, $2600 in 1997, $2700 in 1998, in addition to the heretofore established growth management fee of $750/unit (which growth management fees may be superseded if the City adopts a comprehensive fee schedule to address unfunded capital improvements from new development; and as to the Chu project, the approval is conditional on the property owners' entering into an agreement to dedicate the park site and street fights of way to the school site in advance of the final subdivision, if necessary, with reimbursement of development costs incurred by the City or the School District for these infrastructure improvements; and reallocating Prudential's Spanish Oaks growth management approvals from 1995 and 1996 to 1996 and 1997. 03/15/94 6