SR 06:060 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding CC&Rs and the use of garages for cars rather than storage space, Ms. Decker replied that the homeowners association would be the enforcement mechanism rather than the City. Mr. Roush stated that the City had the ability but not the obligation to enforce certain provisions of the CC&Rs. He envisioned that the homeowners association would have that enforcement mechanism, but the City would have the separate authority under the CC&Rs to enforce that. A discussion of enforcement options ensued. Mr. Roush advised that permit parking could be used if parking became an issue. Ms. Decker noted that with respect to Condition No. 14, the applicant requested that the Department of Real Estate report be required at the time a certificate of occupancy is granted rather than before the building and grading permit is issued. Staff did not have an issue with this request. Commissioner Blank noted that he would rather have the trees replaced and some fees if possible. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Pearce regarding whether there was more than one comment regarding the tot lot, Ms. Decker confirmed that was the only comment. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding the purchase of the lots, Mr. Roush confirmed that if the Commission so desired, a condition could be included that Pleasanton residents or some subset thereof would have the first opportunity to purchase the units during a certain period of time. He clarified that the subset could include professionals such as nurses or teachers. Commissioner Maas noted that while her son was raised in Pleasanton, he lived in San Leandro because of affordability issues and hoped that kind of situation would not be an obstacle. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding anti-flip policies, Mr. Roush noted that generally that kind of restriction is not put on a property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. John McMorrow, applicant, noted that the purchase agreements included an anti-flip provision and that there would not be numerous "For Sale" signs since the developer would be the one trying to sell units. He added that the affordable units were designated for Pleasanton residents first, and people who work in Pleasanton second. He did not want the entire project conditioned on that. He noted that one renter objected to the tot lot, and, as a result, it was removed. He noted that they saved every tree that could be saved. He noted that there were hundreds of cable types for the various solar systems and that it would be impossible to determine the type that would be needed. He added that they would supply the pipe and the pull cable. Windows were added to the garages so that it could be determined if a resident was not using their garage for DRAFT EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, Page 2 of 4 January 25, 2006