Laserfiche WebLink
267 <br /> <br />possible, for those developers eligible for Growth Management. Any <br />allocation left would go to Ruby Hill, if the Project is annexed to <br />the City. <br /> <br />Ms. Scribner indicated that there might not be enough <br />allocation left to take in 75 units for Ruby Hill. She stated that <br />the City needs to be sensitive to Ruby Hill's request if the <br />Project will be annexed because of the huge up-front costs incurred <br />by the developer. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer commented that the City does not have to grant Ruby <br />Hill's Preannexation Agreement request of 75 units. He added that <br />Ruby Hill would be a moot issue for 1992 Growth Management because <br />the Project would not be able to complete any units next year, <br />considering that the developer would have to build a sewer system, <br />water lines, a fire station, and whatever else the City would <br />probably require if it were annexed to Pleasanton. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta stated that Ruby Hill requested a total of 250 <br />units between 1992 and 1993. She added that any project has the <br />ability to take out a building permit six months in advance, so <br />that if Ruby Hill is annexed and receives Growth Management <br />allocation in 1993, construction can still start in late 1992. She <br />then inquired if Council would determine the percentage to be set <br />aside for low and very low income allocation at this time and if <br />Council would consider applications made in 1992 for these types of <br />projects, regardless of whether or not the target allocation of 500 <br />units has been met. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that the General Plan allows up to a maximum <br />of 650 units per year and that Council would have the flexibility <br />to use that if it felt the need to address very low, low, or <br />moderate income housing, or even Ruby Hill. <br /> <br />Item 6e <br />1991-92 Annual Assessments for Landscape District 1984-1, <br />Ponderosa Homes (SR 91:230) <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing open on the <br />application. <br /> <br /> There being no testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the public <br />hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer inquired if the assessments needed to be done <br />annually. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that a public hearing was required under the <br />Streets and Highways Code. <br /> <br /> - 17 - <br /> 6-18-91 <br /> <br /> <br />