My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN101591
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
CCMIN101591
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/2/2011 11:56:15 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 10:26:15 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.
/
30
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
81 <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush stated that the reforestation issue is what is being <br /> considered tonight. What is being said is that no building permits <br /> will be issued for certain houses on certain lots until the <br /> reforestation plan is installed or under way with adequate <br /> securities. This plan is linked to the overall public improvements <br /> plan. <br /> <br /> Ron Cahoni, owner of lot 23, is very concerned about <br />conditions 5 and 6 as mentioned previously. If the same guidelines <br />are in effect then the wording in condition 5 should be changed. <br />He suggests that the wording "reduced heights" is misleading and <br />implies different guidelines being put into effect. <br /> <br /> Council agreed to remove the entire sentence..."Particular <br />attention shall be given to reduced height, FAR, massing of the <br />houses, color, roof/siding materials, grading, and landscaping..." <br />which would alleviate the implication of different guidelines being <br />in effect. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cahoni also voiced his objections to Condition 6 in <br />Exhibit "A". Withholding of building permits until the <br />reforestation is under way puts the lot owners in a position of not <br />knowing when they can proceed with the construction of their homes, <br />because they have no idea when the developer is going to come up <br />with a plan for reforestation. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr commented that if timing was the issue and the <br />developer is held responsible, one way of addressing that would be <br />a reimbursement agreement. If the owners knew that the developer <br />would be required to reimburse them, would it be agreeable to them <br />to do the reforestation themselves and get paid back for it as soon <br />as everything comes together? <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer asked, if the common areas aren't being <br />reforested but the owners were willing to pay for the reforestation <br />of their lot, can they go ahead? The really important issue is <br />getting utilities to these lots. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift indicated that according to condition 6, a property <br />owner could not take out the building permit until all the <br />conditions are met. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated there was nothing precluding the owners from <br />going through the process under the existing conditions in getting <br />design review approval. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift indicated that if condition 6 were deleted, then the <br />lots could be reforested by the property owners as the houses were <br />being built, with the reimbursement agreement for the developer to <br />pay for it. There would, however, be no reforestation of the <br />common area under way at that time. <br /> <br />10-15-91 17 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.