Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Mohr indicated that from the beginning of Hacienda Business Park, she had thought <br />it was a good idea to have housing near the businesses. This project has many amenities that <br />warrant favorable consideration. The sports park offers a lot of possibilities, but the project <br />should not be tied to that. With regard to the comment about building the apartments first, the <br />phasing of the project will be determined by growth management allocation. Ms. Mohr <br />indicated Pleasanton is one of the best planned communities in the state and this project fits that <br />careful planning. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico enjoyed talking to many people about this project and indicated he had learned <br />a lot by going through this project. He indicated there is a need for a community park, but <br />agreed approval of this project should not be linked with the park issue. He referred to the in- <br />lieu park dedication fees from other developments and reiterated his desire to have public <br />hearings to review priorities for capital improvement park projects. Mr. Pico believed there was <br />enough money to build the parks the city wants without approving further residential <br />development. He also indicated he was not happy with 32' street widths; he wanted parking on <br />both sides of the street and sidewalks on both sides of the street. Mr. Pico indicated his concern <br />for adequate parking. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico further stated that there are 3,000 units still unbuilt that could provide housing <br />for the businesses and the effect of those units should be analyzed first. This could be a long <br />term asset for the city, but the time is not now. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner indicated she liked the project as it was a complete neighborhood with a <br />good mix of products and a good price for the area. Being close to BART is very good. She <br />preferred to have the park issue setfled, but the opportunity for a 20 acre park fulffiled the <br />community's desires. Council still needs to decide what is best and where. She would be <br />willing to approve the project with a condition that the park details be settled at a later date. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis thanked everyone for taking the time to talk and work out the issues <br />regarding this project. She indicated the project is good for this area, but would like the details <br />of the park to be firmer. Ms. Dennis thought the housing fits in the community and will be <br />enhanced by the park. She requested the decision be postponed to the next meeting. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver did not share the opinion of Mr. Pico about solving the park problems. This <br />sports park is sorely needed and Council has the oppommity to take care of that. He felt this <br />product mix is good. He was concerned about growth management and how to fit this project <br />in, but the new growth management ordinance takes care of his concerns about build out of <br />units. He agreed the park should be finished with lights prior to the occupancy of the residential <br />units. With regard to comments that the apartments be built first, the developer could provide <br />notification to any prospective buyers of the single family units that the apartments are part of <br />the proposed project. Mr. Tarver commented that these residential units were not necessarily <br />affordable housing but were better than some others that were being built. He preferred to have <br />a partnership with Prudential rather than an adversarial relationship. He also indicated his <br />preference not to move forward until the park is defined better. <br /> <br />09/21/93 16 <br /> <br /> <br />