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
Commissioner O'Connor inquired what was considered to bean impact, given that <br />this was quite a distance away. Ms. Seto replied that the report discusses in detail a <br />number of physical areas a species would have to cross in orderto getto this site. <br />She noted that this would be the reason why it is unlikely they would travel that far to <br />be at this site. She added that this site does not have the type of water features <br />open space areas have, as opposed to other stock ponds in various areas where <br />water stays and where these kinds of animals are more successful. She noted that <br />because the area goes dry during the summer months, it does not make it conducive <br />as being a habitat for the species, and this is why the biologist determined there <br />would be no impact with the development. <br />Commissioner O'Connor noted that on page 11 of the staff report, there is a <br />discussion regarding the City's preference for the establishment of a Homeowners <br />Association (HOA) as opposed to the developer's preference for a Maintenance <br />Association. He inquired what was done at the Serenity Terrace subdivision. <br />Ms. Soo replied that an HOA was approved for the Serenity Terrace development. <br />Ms. Seto added that in this situation, staff suggests that Parcel A be of common <br />ownership which would require an HOA. <br />Commissioner Blank stated that anotherdistinction is that an HOA can officially <br />represent a group of homeowners whereas a Maintenance Association cannot. <br />Ms. Seto further noted that there were different issues associated with an HOA, such <br />as the California Department of Real Estate requires certain expenses be prefunded <br />so they do not end up with a situation where maintenance is needed but no funds <br />are available. <br />Commissioner O'Connor inquired what the primary difference is between setting up <br />a maintenance association as opposed to private ownership. Ms. Seto replied that <br />there are situations on Sycamore Road where there have been land dedicated to the <br />City but the homeowners, through a maintenance association, pay to have the <br />various landscaping, streetlights, etc. maintained. <br />Commissioner Blank inquired where in the conditions the requirement for an HOA <br />was located. Chair Pearce pointed out that it was in Condition No. 11. Ms. Seto <br />noted that the CC&R's must create the HOA. <br />Commissioner O'Connor noted that Condition No. 14 talks about phasing and <br />inquired why phasing for a small subdivision of five units would be required. He <br />further inquired if the applicantwas proposing to phase the project. Chair Pearce <br />indicated that this was a question for the applicant. <br />Chair Pearce noted that the road is 28 feet wide, which allows for parking on one <br />side. She inquired which part of the road is anticipated for parking. Ms. Soo replied <br />that parking would be on the opposite side of the houses. In response to Chair <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 14, 2009 Page 9 of 35 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.