My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
3A Public Hearing 2006 1204
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2006
>
Packet 2006 1204
>
3A Public Hearing 2006 1204
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/10/2007 11:34:50 AM
Creation date
12/1/2006 10:50:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Staff Report
Document Date (6)
12/4/2006
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
_CC Agenda 2006 1204
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2006\Packet 2006 1204
MO 2006-044
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Minute Orders\2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
114
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
<br />MINUTES NO. 89-22 <br /> <br />Page 5 of 7 <br /> <br />November 9t 1989 <br /> <br />there is a gully which will be eliminated. All the water will be taken into a <br />collective system. All grading on the project will be done in such a way as to <br />cause no negative impact on adjacent property. <br /> <br />~ Asked that they not use Lot 5 as a driveway as there have been problems <br />with water lines breaking. <br /> <br />Nelson: Have asked the developer to look into taking some of his sewage out on <br />those streets. He would have to go through Alameda County for construction and <br />repair on road. They might take pipes out that directiont but will have to <br />consider the residences. They would not be able to use those streets without <br />the permission of the County. <br /> <br />Rob: Expressed concerns about the ch il dren who 1 i ve in the area and the <br />increased traffic involved with the project. <br /> <br />M (Pretto) S (Dlugosh) C unanimously to close public hearing. <br /> <br />Reed: Suggested that it may be a good idea if Staff met with the developer of <br />the site in the County to determine if the two projects will impact on each <br />other. <br /> <br />Vitz: Stated that Staff could contact Alameda County Planning and Public Works <br />Department. This would be at the easterly corner and not adjacent to any of the <br />lots except Lot 9. <br /> <br />BerQer: Asked about the condition that states the developer shall submit fencing <br />and landscaping plans. <br /> <br />Langan: Assured the Board that it would be quality fencing; howevert he does <br />not have plans to submit at this time. There would be landscaping provided for <br />each front lot. <br /> <br />Reed: It is not a requirement of this application. <br /> <br />Hesseltine: Asked if Mr. Langon would like to comment on the issues raised by <br />the public regarding drainaget dirt on the streetst etc. <br /> <br />LanQon: Expressed his concern about keeping the site clean. He was not aware <br />. that the soil engineer had left mud on the streett but assured the Board such <br />matters will be closely watched and kept under control during construction. <br /> <br />In regard to the viewt he understands the homeowners concern; however, anytime <br />you buy a home, you run the risk that someday your view will be eliminated. <br /> <br />Reed: Asked if he was going to build single or two-story homes. <br /> <br />LanQon: Stated that he thought it wi 11 be s i ngl e story. Lot 1 wi 11 be one <br />story. <br /> <br />Dlugosh: Stated he still has reservations about Lot 9. Asked what Staff had <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.