Laserfiche WebLink
93 <br /> <br /> 3. If the project is started and mandatory water rationing is <br />instituted, conditions require that no building permits will be <br />issued. If building permits have already been issued, what can the <br />city do in that case. Her understanding is that when rationing is <br />established, the City would discuss rationing with the developers <br />of those projects under construction or which have been <br />constructed. Last year, when Pleasanton went on 25% voluntary <br />cutbacks, Council asked Hacienda Business Park to cut back on its <br />landscape watering by 50%, which it did. Ms. Scribner assumed <br />Council could do the same thing here, but would like clarification. <br /> <br /> 4. Clarify that water to be used during construction for dust <br />control shall be reclaimed water only. <br /> <br /> 5. What happens if the golf course is started and for some <br />reason cannot be finished? Ms. Scribner believed there is a <br />condition that there is a bond and the City would take over, but <br />wanted to make sure. <br /> <br /> 6. Describe location and operation of the one-way <br />construction road. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner indicated when the project was discussed at the <br />last meeting there was a lot of testimony and a lot of emotion <br />involved. She believed the votes were taken out of order. Ms. <br />Scribner would have preferred no golf course; however, that motion <br />was defeated. The project which was approved was a 98 unit <br />development with an easement for an access road with the developer <br />paying part of the cost of that access road. Ms. Scribner pointed <br />out that Engineering has estimated the cost of construction of the <br />access road as $1 million. Under the terms of the project <br />approval, the developer would be paying approximately $200,000, <br />which leaves a big gap in the cost for the taxpayers to pick up. <br />Ms. Scribner did not agree with that and requested reopening <br />discussion to see if anyone on the Council would be interested in <br />the 86 unit project with no access road. She stated this was an <br />alternative that the homeowners at one point said they would agree <br />to, because their major concerns were traffic. In looking at the <br />numbers from the city's traffic studies and the numbers generated <br />by the developer, it is possible to keep Hearst Drive at 3000 ADT <br />level with that plan. That iS her preference. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer asked if there would still be a construction road <br />if the 86 unit project were approved with no access road. Ms. <br />Scribner said yes. Mr. Mercer supported the 86 unit project at the <br />last meeting and agreed with Ms. Scribner. <br /> <br /> There being no further comments, this item was continued to <br />the October 20, 1992 City Council meeting. <br /> <br />10/6/92 19 <br /> <br /> <br />