Laserfiche WebLink
they should be resolved in about a month. Mr. Kull reiterated their request <br /> 411W that they be permitted to proceed through the building permit process <br /> while these improvements were being worked on to prevent additional <br /> delay. Mr. Kull also noted that they needed direction on the conditions of <br /> approval. There were conflicting conditions regarding the creek <br /> improvements with Santa Clara Valley Water District requiring an 800' <br /> section of the creek with 1/4 ton rock (about 20,000 boulders). However <br /> they had had a report done by Nancy Hardesty on protecting the creek with <br /> natural vegetation and they believed the creek as designed would handle <br /> the 100 year storm. They were not planning on changing the design of the <br /> creek but rather the armoring of the creek. He further noted that the <br /> owners of the lots would be able to get flood insurance if the condition <br /> from the Santa Clara Valley Water District was not met and he referred to <br /> a three-year maintenance agreement and an additional bond. Mr. Kull <br /> noted that the plans had been approved for the Francemont Bridge and <br /> they needed a permit to construct during the rainy period. In the <br /> meantime a temporary access easement had been created. Regarding <br /> sewer improvements, Mr. Kull stated that they were completed. <br /> Council discussed several issues which had been raised. Tryon stated that she <br /> did not believe anyone had wanted a 20,000 rock lined creek as <br /> recommended by the Water District. She did believe more input was <br /> needed and stated that it would have been very helpful if someone from <br /> 4IW the Santa Clara Valley Water District had been present to explain their <br /> position. She also believed there should be full disclosure to the <br /> purchasers of the lots. Siegel did not support any construction on the site <br /> until the Francement Bridge was in. He further believed the site <br /> development process could proceed with a disclosure from the applicant <br /> that the lots might change. Building permits would not be issued until <br /> certain conditions were met. Siegel did not support the Santa Clara Valley <br /> Water District's design for the creek and noted that the Council should see <br /> the report done by Nancy Hardesty and Associates. Casey concurred with <br /> Siegel's comments about the creek improvements. Hubbard raised the <br /> question of bonding and the Consulting Engineer responded that the <br /> project was 100% bonded. <br /> The Consulting Engineer noted that if any changes were made to the creek <br /> channel it would have to be looked at again and since the channel was <br /> under construction, the rains were a real concern. He also stated that it <br /> was important to find out from the Santa Clara Valley District ahead of <br /> time what would happen if their design was not done. The tradeoff was <br /> between protection and aesthetics. <br /> February 5, 1992 <br /> 5 <br />