PC 02/08/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Changes to Pod W include additional dedications to the Tiger Salamander habitat area (an additional 14 acres). This was required for Ruby Hill to obtain its nation-wide permit. This resulted in a loss of nine lots and changes in the circulation pattern. The changes in Pod W are already in conformance with the conditions of approval for the PUD and Tentative Map. Staff feels the changes are improvements over the original grading map and are more sensitive to the natural topography. Golf course holes 1 through 9 are nearly complete and the applicants are anxious to get holes 10 through 18 started. The plans for N, Q, U, E, K, and J are nearly final. Staff is not requiring a new tentative map for that area. A new tentative map is required for Pods 0, R, V, and W because of some concerns with the Vallecitos Road entry. The applicants have agreed to come back with a new Tentative Map for this area. There is only one condition the applicant is not in agreement with and that has to do with staffs request for sidewalks. Staff does not feel the addition of at least one sidewalk on one side of the street will adversely affect this project. The applicants feel they have adequately addressed pedestrian circulation through the open areas. It was clarified that the area in which staff wishes to have one sidewalk is on the main loop street around the development. Commissioner Hovingh inquired of Mr. Higdon if the one-year time frame for Condition 32 is necessary. Mr. Higdon commented that it is a conservative condition, and if a soils engineer can demonstrate at six months or nine months that no settling is occurring, building permits will be issued. Otherwise, construction cannot start until one year's time. Commission Barker inquired if the applicants have a request for reduction in impact fees before the County. Ms. Watt stated the County Board of Supervisors is considering rescinding the original decision of approving the cap on land trust fees. Furthermore, because Ruby Hill is under City jurisdiction, Ruby Hill could not be granted the fee cap without City approval. Commissioner Barker inquired if a they could condition the project that the applicants could not legally challenge the findings. Mr. Beougher does not recommend that action. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Mr. James Ghielmetti, Signature Properties, 6612 Owens Drive, stated their concern regarding how the agricultural trust is handled in terms of a ceiling and requesting yearly operating reports, since they are depositing the majority of the money. The money can only be used to purchase viticulture land in South Livermore. They must get approval from both the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton for the agricultural trust fee cap. There is an escalation clause and the applicants feel more money is being collected than can be used Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 February 8, 1995