PC 05/20/81 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Bowers addressed Condition No. 5 relating to noise and presented visual aides concerning what the height would have to be of a sound- wall to take care of this concern. Regarding Condition No. 6, sewer capacity guarantee, he stated they have already purchased sewer connections and didn't want anything taken away from the develop- ment. He further stated that in his opinion Condition No. 7 relating to RAP shouldn't apply to the project realizing the ordinance is silent with regard to planned unit developments. He asked that Condition No. 32 concerning sanitary sewer lift station be eliminated from the con- ditions. Chairperson Wilson stated that many people in the City of Pleasanton have had properties assessed based on 6500 sq. ft. lots and then were cut in half. Regarding the soundwall, he said that is a pretty standard requirement of all projects requiring protection from noise and cited several in Pleasanton. Chairperson Wilson asked Mr. Warnick to discuss the City's general position with rolled curbs and the reason for that position. He stated that if the developer had been familiar with other develop- ments in Pleasanton he might understand that most of these conditions are pretty standard requirements and have existed in the City for years. He said the City is not asking any more of this development than they have of others. The public hearing was closed. Chairperson Wilson asked Commissioner Getty if she recalled (as Chairperson for the Land Use Review Committee), how that Committee felt about this particular piece of property. Commissioner Getty stated that they concurred with the General Plan land use designation of 1976. Mr. Harris confirmed that no change was recommended by the Committee for this property. He further stated that the 85 lots comply with the General Plan but for the very upper limit allowed. Commissioner Getty asked the staff to comment on Conditions Nos., 5, 6, 18, 32 and 37. Mr. Harris expressed opinion of #5. He stated that it is true the freeway is 10 ft. higher than the finished pads will be and it will be difficult to attenuate noise, but it is the City's intent to at least address this concern. Mr. Harris stated that the applicant has not worked with the staff sufficiently to work out all of the concerns that they have. He said it may be that noise can be attenuated somewhat with berms, etc. Mr. Warnick said that Condition No. 6 relating to sewer guarantee is a standard condition and was developed by the City Attorney. Mr. Harris stated that it is not the intent of the condition to have the developer give up rights which he presently enjoys. Mr. Warnick said that with regard to Condition No. 18 he doesn't object to a modi- fication which eliminates "That the public improvements for this development should be installed at one time." "This plan, if approved, shall include all utilities." No. 32 only states that "if" there is a pump station, but that concerning No. 37 if the applicant follows the City's proposed street section, and the wooden poles and orna- mental luminars meet the P.G.&E. requirements, there is no objection -6- _.