PC 042308 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Fox inquired why the lack of sewer and water conditions were stricken as they were standard conditions. Mr. Otto noted that they were standard advisory conditions and the applicant had some concern with them. He added that since they were advisory, the City could withhold permits if there was a water shortage, in the same way that any problem with sewer capacity would enable the City to withhold the issuance of building permits. Mr. Heffner noted that they were being required to construct an eight-inch sewer line 850 feet around Stoneridge Mall Road because the sewer was currently at full capacity. He stated that he did not want the building permits to be refused for lack of sewer capacity after they had paid to install the new sewer line. He noted that the sewer and water were together in that regard. He noted that construction costs have skyrocketed, interest rates are rising, and the lending requirements are much tougher. He added that they had agreed to reduce their rent on 20 percent of their units by 50 percent of the income. He indicated that they wished to move through the process and get the approvals moving forward, at which point they will spend $2 to $3 million on plans preparing for the building permit. He noted that as a developer, there was a great risk of spending that money after having committed to putting in the sewer line, only to have the City refuse the building permit because of reduced sewer capacity. He noted that having that as a condition of approval would be an obstacle to the lenders and equity partners as they spend the money to design the project on the way to getting the building permit. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner O'Connor regarding what position that put the City in if there was, in fact, no sewer capacity and it was not a condition of approval, Ms. Harryman replied that this condition was advisory to the applicants. She added that the applicant noted that they were putting the capacity around the prof ect but that if there were insufficient capacity at the treatment facility, the permit would not be issued. She noted that it would not change the City's position and that, in her opinion, it was acceptable to strike those conditions. Ms. Decker noted that staff checked with the Utilities Engineer and Director of Public Works and that they had engaged in discussions with the applicant, who were amenable to the removal of these conditions. Commissioner Fox inquired whether other developers in town would get preferential treatment and get their permits pulled first. Ms. Harryman noted that these conditions were standard, advisory conditions that put the developer on notice with no priority one way or the other. Commissioner Pearce noted that she liked the vehicle counter sign. She inquired how the on-site property manager would be able to monitor the retail parking, as well as take care of the concierge services. Mr. Heffner noted that there would also be 24/7 security personnel and that a project of this size would have at least three staff members who lived on-site as part of their compensation package. Chair Blank inquired where the discussion on the 230 KV power line under the BART substation that was mentioned in the first report was located. Commissioner Narum noted that it was included in the EMF report. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 23, 2008 Page 19 of 28