CCMIN111379 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Gene Finch, 582 Sycamore Road, stated he planned to live in this area. He strongly recommended that the application be approved as he felt it would be an asset to the community and fill a need for this type of housing. Ms. Diane Louden, 5643 Sonoma, stated she felt Pleasanton needs this type of development and she would like to see the application accepted. The following persons spoke in opposition to this application. Mr. Ed McGovern, 9206 Longview Drive, representing the homeowners on Longview Drive, expressed concern regarding the liability for geologic catastrophy and asked who would be liable in this matter. The City Attorney advised that as to responsi- bility of the City in approving the design, the City has made all reasonable efforts to assure the safety of the proposed development from geologic hazard. In addition it has kept the number of public facilities in the higher areas of the project to a minimum to avoid suits based on the "damaging" clause of the California Constitution. Mr. McGovern stated he felt an Environmental Impact Report should be required with emphasis on density, traffic, aesthetic impact, potential geologic hazards, sewer hook up limitations, and exit roads. Mr. David Hayes, 40418 Seville Court, Fremont, Engineering Geologist representing Longview homeowners, stated he had looked at the subject parcel and reviewed the geotechnical report. He stated he did not feel any septic tanks should be allowed. Mr. Hayes stated that he took exception to the term "several small landslides" men- tioned in the geological impacts, as he felt they were really quite large. He ex- pressed concern regarding landslide correction and displayed a map showing recent landslide areas. He stated he did not feel there was adequate protection provided for geological hazards. Mr. Abel R. Sorres, 1619 Broadway, San Pablo, Consultant, stated he felt the slide corrections are so critical that specific plans and cross sections on the lower area should be reviewed before the application is approved and that the developer should provide this information. He stated he felt the 2 larger landslides could not be corrected. Mr. Hirst rebutted the concerns of the opponents. He stated he felt that ade- quate information regarding soil conditions had been provided for the Council to make a decision and that the Planning Commission conditions mitigate the problem area s. Mr. Judd Hull, 1441 Greenwood Road, Geotechnical Consultant for the applicant, reviewed the field work done in preparing the comprehensive soild report. He stated the hillside has to be done with conservatism and that each lot will be considered separately when construction plans are presented. Mr. Hull presented the written opinion of Mr. Charles R. Comstock, Engineering Geologist for Alameda County, which states that the potential for reactivation of sliding as the direct result of development activities, given the relative low density proposed and provided that certain safeguards are adherred to, can be considered as low. Mr. Hull stated he felt the property was adequate for construction. Mr. Harris stated it was his understanding there would be a soils report pre- pared for each lot with the building plans. There being no further public testimony, Mayor Brandes declared the public hearing closed on the application and the negative declaration. Mayor Brandes asked why the sprinkler system requirement had been removed from 8. 11/13/79