Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Tarver asked about the City's liability should it <br />assume responsibility for the storm drains of the development. <br />Mr. Swift indicated that the laws are always changing with regard <br />to this matter, and the latest series of cases hold that if the <br />City approves a project but all utilities, streets and <br />maintenance are provided by the property owners, the City is not <br />responsible should these services fail. Referring to possible <br />landslides, <br />Mr. Swift indicated that a small slide is a large matter when it <br />effects a house. Law suits would follow that situation, but the <br />risk to the City would be minimal. A larger risk happens when <br />the City owns the utilities. The staff has tried to balance the <br />benefits to the City vs the risks it would take. <br />Commissioner Hovingh discussed proposed Condition No. 26, asking <br />if the condition, as written, made the City liable. Mr. Swift <br />stated that the City's liability would not be especially great <br />just because they approved the project. <br />The public hearing was opened. <br />Ted C. Fairfield, Consulting Civil Engineer, Pleasanton, stated <br />that they are before the Planning Commission for compliance <br />procedures. Mr. Fairfield then presented exhibits and explained <br />compliance with the originally approved development, including <br />reduced grading, change to the middle bench, and one entrance of <br />off Foothill Road. Mr. Fairfield reviewed other compliance <br />features of the exhibits. <br />Regarding the proposed conditions, they agree with the majority <br />of the conditions, as revised, with the exception of four. He <br />asked for the following changes: <br />Condition No. 22 be changed to add "unless otherwise <br />approved by the Planning Director or City Engineer." Mr. <br />Fairfield reviewed the two culs-de-sac serving the two lots. <br />Mr. Swift stated that staff has no problem with this, and <br />that language is already included to cover this request. <br />Condition No. 26, as revised, is a major City policy change <br />to which he objects. Storm drains are substantial. To make <br />the homeowners <br />They shouldn't <br />business which <br />The homeowners <br />connected with <br />Condition No. <br />condition. He <br />revised. <br />responsible for them is a unfair burden. <br />have to be made to go into the storm drain <br />would include contracting, equipment, etc. <br />would have to bear the cost of all services <br />the storm drain. Mr. Fairfield asked that <br />27 as originally proposed be put back in as a <br />urged that Condition No. 26 (drainage) be <br />-8- <br />