PC 09/23/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

frontage for the widening of Amber Lane, but only if it did not cost em anything. They both told him that if it cost them anything they would prefer that it r main as it is. He noted that Amber Lane is a private driveway approved by Alameda Coun to service two one-acre lot properties. Mr. Lavey proposed that the access to his property should be on his property and that he have a private driveway that parallels Amber Lane. At the end of h s driveway there could be a barricaded gate which is what has been there for 25 years. Sta f has told him that if he has a private driveway that would create a dual entrance which wou be confusing for those who live on his property. His response to that was that there are ei ht other dual entrances on Sycamore Road. These entrances have been used for years and his knowledge, people have not gotten confused as to where to drive. Mr. Lavey proposed a second plan that would bring his private driv way down the west side of his property. In that case Amber Lane would remain as it is no . He said he does not have a problem with paying for improvements within the boundaries of his property, but did not think it proper and fair that he pay for all the improvements for thers if they are not willing to help pay for it. ~ Commissioner Michelotti asked Mr. Lavey to further describe the d 'veway situation and the fencing. e could be changed to Commissioner Mahern asked Mr. Lavey if his plan is used if that w uld reduce Lots 1 and 4 as shown in the report. Mr. Lavey said it would not, as the 20 ft. 1 e that he drives is on his side of the street. Discussion ensued as Mr. Lavey described how one half of Amber accommodate the situation. Darryl Alexander, 205 Main Street, also represented the application He stated that the PUD before them this evening as submitted meets all the requirements fo street improvements along Sycamore Road. It also meets all the improvements along A ber Lane as required by the City of Pleasanton. He felt that Condition 14 goes beyond the ity Municipal Code and the subdivision requirements. He presented the Commission with ritten information from the Municipal Code that verified his comments and further read his omments. Mr. Alexander called attention to page 10 of the staff report, notin that the $67,500 is not correct, but that it should actually be $54,000 less than that. He al said the figure of $45,000 that staff is saying is necessary to improve Amber Lane wi h new relocated overhead utility lines has not been verified with PG&E. He said th re is a considerable difference between the developer's cost of relocating power poles d the City of Pleasanton's cost. He felt what the developer should actually pay as $45,000 more than is normally required to improve the land. In summary, Condition 14 equires the developer to ,- Planning Commission Minutes September 23. 1992 Page 13