CCMIN091603 - Laserfiche WebLink

the retaining walls. He pointed out the quantity of dirt that needs to be removed is the exact quantity that was determined to be appropr/ate for the area during the PUD process. In particular, the City required significantly, lowered lots to preserve the view of the vineyards. In order to achieve that lower lot level, dirt must be removed. The removal of dirt has been minimized in the way the project has been designed fi'om the PUD stage forward. The other contention is related to the material changes of the retaining walls. He pointed out that when you lower the level of the lot, you get a cut that falls back into people's yards; therefore, you must build retaining walls, which is a necessary result of the lowered pads. His understanding of what the engineers have designed and placed into the map is appropriate by today's practices and is what is necessary. These two matters mentioned were up in the air and it was his belief they did not provide a good reason for denying the project; however, the Planning Commission viewed this differently. Ms. Ayala pointed out to Mr. Schiies that he had mentioned visuals and noted that there were no visuals provided with the tentative map. Mr. Schlies stated that a number of visuals were done to illustrate how the houses would look from different locations. Ms. Ayala relayed that she was not able to obtain any visuals with the exception of 2001. Mr. Swift clarified that the visuals Mr. Schlies was referring to were the PUD visuals, and pointed out that for the tentative map, new visuals were not required. Ms. Ayala asked Mr. Sob. lies if he had seen the visuals. He indicated he had several years ago. Ms. Ayala remarked that she is continually approached about Moiler Ranch which she did not approve as she was not on the Council at the time. It has been mentioned to her that we are creating another Moiler Ranch. She clarified with staff that this would not look like another Moiler Ranch and that it would look like the visuals provided. She did not want something that we would be sorry for later on. Mr. Swift confirmed his belief that the development would look like the visuals as provided. Mr. Schlies did not believe that this development would be another Moiler Ranch. He also had a concern about Condition 23. That condition requires the applicant to provide a city water connection to a neighboring owner. Northstar Construction indicated to staff if such a condition is imposed, it is Northstar's current business judgment to satisfy that condition and not challenge it in a judicial forum. He believes the Chr/smans do not differ in their approach. On the other hand, the Christmaus do not favor Condition 23. He has advised them that a project condition must have some relation nexus to a project impact. In this particular situation, the staff report indicates there is simply no impact on the neighbor's water supply. Under governing law for requ'ming mitigations of impacts, this would not be an appropriate condition to impose. The practicalities are, Pleasanton City Council 17 09/16/03 Minutes