Laserfiche WebLink
173 <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that there may be a distinction between the <br />lots a developer offers for sale and the lots individual buyers <br />may or may not resell or build on. A custom lot project approved <br />ten years ago which the developer is holding back on because he is <br />watching the market climb messes up the numbers, while there would <br />be less impact involved where an individual buyer is concerned. <br />She mentioned that if custom lots will be subject to the lapsing <br />provisions, these provisions should be applied at the original <br />sale of the lots. <br /> <br /> Mr. Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, presented a letter from <br />Ms. Lilly Ault, President of the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce, <br />requesting the continuation of the ordinance. He stated that <br />developers in Pleasanton can now realistically talk about when <br />they want growth management. It would be devastating for a <br />developer who is trying to get financing for a final map to lose <br />his growth management approval, and this possibility in not <br />acceptable to lenders. He suggested that a developer who does not <br />build within the growth management year be fined $15,000 for water <br />and sewer so the value of the subdivision, as well as the <br />improvements and the land, is not lost. That way, the developer <br />could still get a loan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mohr asked Mr. MacDonald if the group considered the <br />question of how to deal with custom lots. <br /> <br /> Mr. MacDonald stated that even tract developments are now <br />considered custom lots because while subdivision improvements are <br />built, the units are not until they have buyers. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer recommended that Mr. Tarver continue to meet with <br />the growth management group. He commented that Mr. MacDonald's <br />suggestion that the developer pay a fee as penalty is a good idea, <br />but added that the developer should also pay for any increases in <br />fees. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr expressed concern about two issues which she felt <br />needed further discussion: (1) How the City would anticipate when <br />the fees would come in so the budget can be done, because holding <br />these off for multiple years can complicate matters even further; <br />and (2) The accumulation by some developers of several years of <br />growth management, so that on the year they decide to build, there <br />is a sudden growth, which presents a problem from the public's <br />perception. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver indicated that he needed some guidance from the <br />Council regarding what it wanted to do next. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer requested Mr. Tarver to bring the matter back to <br />Council for public hearing when it is ready. <br /> <br /> - 9 - <br /> 4-3-90 <br /> <br /> <br />