My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 011409
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
PC 011409
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 4:39:22 PM
Creation date
3/20/2009 2:48:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/14/2009
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
does not necessarily always mean "will," and it is challenging to say to a developer <br />or the City that one would get a 100-percent guarantee. <br />Commissioner O'Connor stressed that his point is that he thinks the City should at <br />least take a role or look into it as opposed to waiting for one homeowner to sue <br />another homeowner. Ms. Seto clarified that agreements are written with options for <br />being proactive. She explained that typically for sites where there is a detention <br />basin and other types of improvement and where there would need to be <br />maintenance done by homeowners, if these were not maintained properly or <br />sedimentation has built in the detention basin such that the quantity of water that the <br />detention basin holds starts to be reduced because there is so much gravel and <br />sediment built up over time, there are provisions in the agreements where the City <br />Engineer can direct the owners to remediate that. She added that if there is an <br />emergency situation, there are provisions where the City can have the work done <br />and go back and bill the property owner. <br />Commissioner Blank noted that there are several detention ponds and that the <br />matter is taken very seriously forthatvery reason. <br />Commissioner O'Connorstated that he likes the project and felt the density fits into <br />the intent of the Happy Valley Specific Plan. <br />Commissioner Blank agreed and stated that the fact that it is not quite one acre is to <br />the City's advantage. He added that he did not know how the project would pencil <br />out if one lot were eliminated, and he was hesitantto entertain that. He noted that <br />the fact that it is a private versus public open space is preferred by the City and that <br />he prefers an HOAto a maintenance association. He stated that he would support <br />the project. <br />Commissioner Fox noted that Lots 1 through 4 total 3.48 acres. She stated that she <br />would prefer that there be three lots rather than four and that they all be in excess of <br />one acre. She added that if there were three lots, houses could be brought closer to <br />the street and away from the seasonal drainage area more effectively. She <br />indicated that she will not support the project with lots less than one acre. <br />Commissioner Olson agreed with the assessments made by Commissioners <br />O'Connor and Blank and stated that he preferred to look at the project as a ten-acre <br />site with five lots. He indicated that he felt it would run counter to the principle and <br />intent of the Specific Plan if the hillside were taken and made into public land. He <br />added that he supported the project. <br />Commissioner Narum inquired if the projectwere providing any benefits to the City <br />such as road improvements. She noted that Condition No. 47 states that with the <br />first construction phase, the developer should improve the segment of the Happy <br />Valley Road that abuts the project site as specified in the Happy Valley Specific Plan <br />and inquired if the road would be widened. She stated that she understands that the <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 14, 2009 Page 13 of 35 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.