Laserfiche WebLink
189 <br /> <br /> Mr. Pereira replied that he had no problem with that. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer stated that it was his understanding that if an <br />uphill neighbor does something in his property that increases the <br />drainage or causes problems on the lower neighbor, the liability <br />belongs to the uphill neighbor. He inquired how the level of <br />damage on the lower neighbor would be determined. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that there will usually be an issue as to <br />whether the owner of the lower property did something on his <br />property that caused the condition to worsen. He indicated that <br />the City could require a condition that the developer would <br />indemnify the City with respect to any drainage problems created <br />by the development. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer inquired if Staff knows the extent of the drainage <br />problems that exist in Ventana Hills so that the City may be able <br />to determine in the future whether or not a problem was caused by <br />this development. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that the EIR provides sufficient information <br />on the scope of the water problems in the area. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pereira stated that water problems exist in Ventana Hills <br />and in many of the hilly areas in Pleasanton which have adobe or <br />clay-type soils. He pointed out that the areas in Ventana Hills <br />where some of the water problems occur are filled land where a <br />creek used to exist and which now has an apparent underground water <br />flow. He added that it has been his experience that 90% of water <br />problems come from improper finished grading and from over- <br />irrigation to get water to the houses. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the <br />public hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer thanked Mr. Pereira and the neighbors for spending <br />time to resolve their problems. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver commended the developer for going to great lengths <br />to meet the residents' concerns. He indicated that he would be in <br />favor of the project were it not for his concerns about the <br />Williamson Act Contract cancellation, some issues in the General <br />Plan, water, traffic, schools, and infrastructure. He stated that <br />he could not make the finding that there is no comparable land <br />available in the area and suitable for the proposed use that could <br />be developed to accomplish what has been proposed in the City's <br />General Plan. He pointed out that the project does not address the <br />job-housing balance because it will not provide the kind of housing <br /> <br /> - 13 - <br /> 5-21-91 <br /> <br /> <br />