CCMIN080790 - Laserfiche WebLink

394 Item 7d - AP-90-8, City of Pleasanton, Appeal of a Decision of the Desiqn Review Board Which Approved Case Z-89-557, the Application of Mano~ Dave for Design Review Approval for an Approximately 10,100 Sq. Ft. Sinqle-Family Residence and Landscapinq Plan Located at 9900 Lonqview Lane (Upper Lon~view) - continue to the September 4th City Council Meeting at the request of the applicant. Mr. Brandes indicated that some assumptions made under item 4o - Consultant for City Affordable Housinq Pro~ect depend on the action to be taken on Item 7e - GP-90-4, Application of the City of Pleasanton to Amend the Housinq Element of the General Plan to Include New Low Income Housinq Fees, Reqional Housinq Share Allocations and Other Policy and Proqram Revisions and Item 7f. He requested that Item 4o and Item 7e be continued together with item 7f, because it would be appropriate to take action on all three items at the same time. Mr. Mercer suggested that should Item 4f be continued, representatives from PacTel Properties and Prudential Insurance Company as well other interested parties should work with staff regarding their concerns on the matter and refer their recommendations to the Affordable Housing Task Force Committee. Ms. Acosta stated that staff would need 60 days to revise the report on the housing fee. Mr. Tarver inquired what the potential loss of revenue would be if some type of fee structure is not adopted at this time. Ms. Acosta replied that it would be difficult to determine the potential loss of revenue because it is uncertain how many of the 305 units that have been approved will continue through the process. She added that it is also possible that the developers :qill come in and apply for a building permit, which would be valid for about a year, since they are aware that the fee will be instituted. Mr. Mercer inquired if the revised report would go to the Planning Commission. Ms. Acosta said yes. · -_-7_,:0 - 2 -