My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN030392
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN030392
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:03 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 10:04:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
122 <br /> <br /> project. He asked if there was a guarantee to the surrounding <br /> neighbors if the project was not completed on time. He believed <br /> that there should be a set time limit to protect the City and the <br /> neighbors. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer indicated that if the project is approved for <br /> growth management, the developers would need to obtain a final map <br /> within a certain period of time or lose growth management. <br /> <br /> Bob Dyne, 74751 Country Lane, stated that he was not against <br /> planned growth. He believed that staff had asked for some specific <br /> changes to be made to the plan in order for it to be approved and <br /> the developer has ignored these requests. He was concerned that <br /> the developer was not working with City staff in processing this <br /> plan. He was afraid that the developer would try to negotiate <br /> after the project was approved. He felt that there were <br /> inconsistencies in the different reports regarding the drainage. <br /> He was worried about the amount of water that runs off the hill. <br /> Me disagreed with the recommendation that natural drainage would be <br /> enough to take care of this problem. Mr. Dyne commented that a <br /> homeowners association is a must. He felt that Council should <br /> refer the project to the Planning Commission and staff to address <br /> some of the concerns previously mentioned. <br /> <br /> Bill Monson stated that he spoke with Mike O'Rourke who is a <br /> neighbor of Mr. Dyne about flooding. Mr. O'Rourke was under the <br /> opinion that there had been some diversion made in the channel <br /> diverted into the Dyne lot and to Mr. O'Rourke's lot. He did not <br /> feel that this was caused from the Currin property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Smith felt that it was unfortunate that the people who had <br /> requested that this plan be referred to the Planning Commission did <br /> not have time to study the plan. He felt that it was a good plan <br /> and that it complied with the Planning Commissions recommendations. <br /> He felt that they had worked with staff diligently. He felt that <br /> if Council allowed the flexibility as suggested and the 54 lots, <br /> the neighbors would find it to be a good development. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer asked Mr. Smith to explain the financing of the <br /> project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Smith explained that it would be done with conventional <br /> financing. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the <br /> public hearing closed. <br /> <br /> 3/3/92 <br /> 20 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.