Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Falender indicated that the original PUD plan showed multiples in the <br />area closer to the freeway. Unfortunately, due to the City"s sewer problems, <br />they lost their option on that property so they cannot construct a wall <br />along the freeway as originally planned. <br />Discussion then centered on the P.G.&E. standards the City is requiring. <br />Mr. Falender estimated a conservative price of between $500-$600 per unit <br />to meet the criteria. Secretary Harris indicated that to meet the mandatory <br />criteria established under the Residential Allocation Program the developer <br />would not be allowed to reduce these requirements. <br />Next, Carolyn Honsberger, resident on Olive Drive, stated that she did not <br />experience any noise problems from her residence. <br />Dick Karsting, 3753 Ashwood Drive, asked for and received explanation of <br />what a zero lot line home is. He indicated that he jogs in that area, and <br />for the most part there are no noise problems in the area. <br />The Public Hearing was closed. <br />Chairman Butler felt it was unrealistic to compare the energy uses in this <br />City with that of other cities such as Hayward, or Walnut Creek. <br />Commissioner Jamieson had concerns about the noise levels. <br />Resolution No. 1629 was entered and adopted making the finding that the <br />project would have a significant impact on the environment as it pertains <br />to noise. This significant impact can be partially mitigated by the <br />requirements for Closed Window Construction as noted under Condition No. <br />12 and partially because of the demands for housing. <br />Roll Call Vote <br />Resolution: Shepherd <br />Seconded: Jamieson <br />Ayes: Jamieson, Shepherd, Butler <br />Noes: None <br />Absent: Doherty <br />Abstain: None <br />Review of the planned unit development was then discussed. <br />Conditions 10 and 11 were modified per previous discussion with Director <br />of Engineering Services Don Sooby. Commissioner Jamieson indicated that he <br />wished to see a condition on dust abatement, although he realized this was <br />generally done at the subdivision map stage. <br />Resolution No. 1630 was entered and adopted recommending to the City Council <br />adoption of PUD-78-2, subject to the conditions in the staff report, modi- <br />fying Conditions 10 and 11, to allow the City Engineer to give final <br />approval regarding provision of a temporary asphalt berm along the east side <br />of Muirwood and the inclusion of Lemonwood Drive; and that dust abatement <br />procedures be utilized while the subdivision is under construction. <br />-8- <br /> <br />