Laserfiche WebLink
249 <br /> <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Mohr and Scribner <br />NOES: Councilmember Pico and Mayor Tarver <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico questioned whether some of the conditions had been <br />met. He agreed with Ms. Dennis' previous comments. He was <br />concerned with indemnity requirements regarding earthquakes. He <br />read Section 1.3 and Section 1.5 of the CC&R's. He felt it needed <br />to be clarified in Section 1.3 that damage due to an earthquake is <br />clearly to be covered by the Assessment District. Mr. Pico <br />believed that the word "earthquake" needed to be added into Section <br />1.5, to read as follows: ...or arising by reason of 8a~hqm~k6s, <br />landslide or subsistence or as a result of construction and <br />improvements of the project on a hillside location." Mr. Pico then <br />referred to Section 12.1.2 and stated that the specific lots <br />affected by the fault zone setback should be clarified. He stated <br />that the Exhibit makes no reference to lots with 50 foot fault zone <br />setbacks. He felt that this should also be added. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver agreed with Mr. Pico's comments. He felt that <br />this was a dangerous situation and that everyone should be notified <br />that there is fault line through the property. He did not believe <br />that the conditions had been met by the applicant. Mayor Tarver <br />would like to see the final map and subdivision map be dated the <br />same date so that the potential to grant an extension of the <br />Subdivision Agreement would be eliminated. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush asked if there was a majority vote regarding the <br />matters that Mr. Pico requested be added to the CC&R's. He did not <br />have any problem in adding those if Council wished to do so. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr referred to the Alquist Preolis Zone and asked if <br />notification of this was state law. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said yes, at least to the first purchaser. The <br />question is if the subsequent purchaser is also adequately <br />informed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr replied there is no way that the developer could <br />withhold that information from anybody. She then asked if the <br />language changes suggested by Mr. Pico were all right. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated that the CC&R's have not been recorded or <br />approved at this time. The option is still available to make <br />changes to the CC&R's. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift explained that Mr. Pico's changes are just to <br />clarify what the conditions are required to be in the CC&R's. <br /> <br />12/15/92 23 <br /> <br /> <br />