CCMIN111798 - Laserfiche WebLink

to do more to return the property to its natural state. Mr. Thomas is unwilling to do this. Because this is a private dispute, staff is recommending the condition that Mr. Thomas restore the site be removed. Mayor Tarver asked if the existing development complied with the original approvals in terms of slope, height, layout. etc. He felt it was the City's responsibility to make sure things were done according to the submitted and approved plans. Mr. Roush said in terms of the Bethel Lane, it was his understanding it has been largely constructed according to the plans. There is some discrepancy as to what the plans show and what in fact got built. Mayor Tarver said notwithstanding the Nelson issue, there appears to be a significant movement of earth towards the trees and ravine that do not correspond with any plans. Mr. Pico asked with respect to Bethel Lane, was it always intended that there would be a retaining wall separating the property owner below from the Nelson's? Mr. Swift said the plans have had a strange evolution throughout the whole process. The original PUD plan that was approved does not show any retaining wall at the coruer where the Nelson's property is. The tentative map does not show a retaining wall either. However, in the subdivision improvement process, in trying to work out the various land swaps between the property owner the road was switched and modified a few feet to the uphill side of the road. When staff is looking at these proposed modifications in the field, staff tries to ensure that the substance of what has been approved is retained. He said landforms were modified on the Ricci, Thomas, and Nelson properties at various stages and various times that were not according to any plan. Staff believes the final improvements built by Mr. Thomas are in substantial conformante with the improvement plans, which includes the retaining wall at the comer of the Ricci property. Many of the changes were discussed in the field between the engineers, city staff and the property owners. The disagreement exists because Mr. Nelson and Mr. Thomas do not agree upon what was discussed in the field. Mr. Michelotti asked if the elevation of the hammerhead has been built as discussed in the field. Mr. Swirl said it is substantially the same. The first tumaround is at a slightly higher elevation. The hammerhead tumaround has been squared which required some fill on the Nelson's property. Ms. Michelotti asked if the lot noah of the lot before Council tonight was going to be accessed from the hammerhead ramaround. Mr. Swift said the lot would get its driveway access from the end of the car ramaround. Pleasanton City Council 8 11/17/98 Minutes