CCMIN120208 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Hosterman noted Mr. Dolan is new to the City, has ideas for implementing changes, and she confirmed with the City Manager that these opportunities would be discussed with the Council some time in March. Councilmember McGovern referred to Condition 1; voiced concern with how it is written. She questioned and confirmed this meant that the condition referred only to Mr. Jeffrey's application and lot. She suggested the condition be re-worded to say, "Re-grading of this parcel is not allowed without Planning Commission or City Council approval, consistent with the original approval of Tract 5835." Regarding Condition 2 and the change from "architect" to "contractor". She suggested the condition be re-worded to say, "Prior to submitting the landscape plans to City staff, property owners will need to secure consent from the rear neighbors as to the landscaping plan." She believed the rear neighbors should have the ability to see what is produced and have input. Regarding Condition 6 and no lighting placed on the pool which would be directed toward the neighbors' house, and she suggested re-wording to say, "Any above-ground lights will be designed in a manner to emit low lighting with downward placement so as not to affect evening sky or adjacent neighbors." Regarding Condition 4 and the berm, she confirmed that the condition covered the southwest corner. Regarding Condition 7, it talks about mature tree growth and plant sizes, and she asked the condition to be re-worded to say, "In selecting 15-gallon versus 24-gallon inch box trees, the Director will strive to achieve the canopy of trees that restores the original privacy of the rear and adjacent neighbors." Councilmember McGovern supported the 35 foot setback. She referred to a home balcony proposed on Peaceful Lane and in-between the two properties on the fence line, they asked for trees of a certain height, and the Council conditioned that the trees had to be maintained, and if one of the species died, it had to be replaced in a timely manner. She confirmed with staff that Condition 7 could be expanded to state, "...within a two to three year period." City Attorney Roush said it is not unusual to have a landscaping and maintenance agreement entered into the property owner and the City. Staff could craft such an agreement whereby there would be an ongoing obligation by the property owner to maintain landscaping. City Manager Fialho said this could also be in the form of a condition, and Councilmember McGovern agreed to either requirement. Councilmember McGovern referred to drainage and slipping, and voiced concern with the engineering standards of the retaining wall built. She asked there be a condition to say, "If the project produces any drainage problems in the future, the property owner shall be responsible for repairing hill stability consistent with the general requirements set forth by the Building and Safety Division of the City of Pleasanton." Lastly, Councilmember McGovern said, in reading the Planning Commission minutes from the last meeting, they talked about recording a deed restriction so that any future buyer would know there had been an established setback of 35 feet. She did not know how this was resolved, and City Attorney Roush said there is a condition that states whatever the rear yard setback will be will be affected by a deed restriction, which would be a declaration of restrictions where the City would require the property owner to enter into. It would be recorded so that any subsequent purchaser would be on notice of that setback restriction. City Council Minutes 13 December 2, 2008