CCMIN060679 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. George Oakes, representing First Pleasanton Investors and Amador Valley Investors, stated he felt merit should be given for design that had previously been approved by staff, Planning Commission, and the City Council. He also stated he felt credit should be given for capital improvements already com- pleted by a. developer even though development of a project had not been accom- plished to date. Mr. Joe Chickerella, representing Mission Park Development Company, stated he was opposed to item 7, as he felt it was unfair and that credit should be given for past capital improvements. He stated he waslalso opposed to item 11, and favored item 10, feeling that capital improvements as a part of a past RAP project should be counted in subsequent submittals of future phases of that project. Mr. Ron Archer, Civil Engineer, 147 Bernal Avenue, stated he felt that capital improvements should be divided into two categories; voluntary and mandatory, with more credit being given to the mandatory capital improvements. Mr. Archer stated he felt more consideration should be given to a project that was in-filling in the community, such as the H. C. Elliott project on Pico Avenue. Planning Commissioner Wilson stated it was not fair to go back to what developers did in the past. Mr. Fairfield suggested that developers connected with the 1972 Settlement Agreement might be given special credit for capital improvements already in (to distinguish between projects within equivalent priority categories), as both sewer and RAP allocations are necessary now to build. He stated the RAP allo- cations should run concurrently with the Sewer Agreement. Mr. Pat Gaffhey, Consultant representing Centex Homes, stated he supported item 1 and item 10. Mr. Jack Bras, 90 Mission Drive, stated he was concerned about the implica- tions of RAP on the small developer. He stated he supported item 12c and item 12d, and was opposed to item 15. Mr..Harvey Kameny, representing Crocker Homes, stated he supported item 1 and item 10, stating that new developers were confronted with high land costs and that high front end costs with too few units may make developments uneconom- ical. Mr. John Van Roebart, stated he felt RAP was typically complicated and that it should be made more simple. He also stated that no undue hardship was placed on small developers by the Residential Allocation Program. Planning Commissioner Wilson asked what method was used to determine the 2% growth rate. The City Attorney advised that Federal grants only provide enough sewer capacity for a 2% growth rate. He stated that additional capacity could be allowed in the next 20 years under private financing, thus allowing a higher growth rate. Mr. Bob Miller, representing Morrison Homes, stated the average household is smaller now than when the original guidelines were established. He stated he felt the amount of gallons flowing into the sewer plant should be considered instead of the number of occupants in a household. 3. 6/6/79