PC 041101 - Laserfiche WebLink

r well water. He noted that the Chrismans will have access to the City water and the well and he will only have well water, and if the well is drained the Chrismans can revert to City water, but he will have no alternative. Mr. Brozosky advised that the Specific Plan states that well water is only to be used for irrigation, while the staff report indicates that it can be used for animals. He also advised that there are some other legal issues that need to be addressed concerning easements once the subdivision is done. He commented on the language in the Specific Plan pertaining to animal uses. Discussion ensued regarding the interpretation of this language. He advised that he would like the CC&R's to address the kinds of outdoor lighting that will be allowed. Discussion ensued regarding the issue of the shared well. Ms. Seto advised that the Specific Plan requires the Chrismans to hook up to municipal water for domestic purposes because they are subdividing, but allows the continued use of the well for irrigation. She noted that while staff is recommending that the Chrismans be allowed to use the well for irrigation as provided in the Specific Plan, the Commission may require the Chrismans to abandon their well easement as a condition of the PUD. Mr. Swift advised that well water will not be mixed with municipal water because there must be a physical break between the two water lines and this backflow prevention will be inspected by the City. Harold Freiman, 2010 Crow Canyon Place, #170, San Ramon, CA 94583, advised that he is the attorney that works with the Pleasanton Unified School District on land use issues and development fee issues. He referenced the letter from the PUSD provided to the Commission this evening. He advised that the "points of agreement" have been signed by the developers and the PUSD. He further advised that the original intent was to have a one page list of points r- outlining the conceptual agreement, but the document became more complex. He noted that the "points of agreement" include terms that are specific and enforceable, and it is the intent to have a more detailed agreement, which addresses all of the statutory requirements. Mr. Freiman advised that from the District's standpoint, this is a binding document. He reported that Signature Properties will build or advance funds for building the elementary school, and five developers are coming together to fund the elementary school and all of the infrastructure related to it. Mr. Freiman advised that timing is a critical issue, in that the District would like to have the school open in fall 2002. Discussion ensued regarding the design of the school, how the design will fit into the Vineyard Corridor architecture style, and the time frame for the State approval process. Mr. Leighton stated that for all practical purposes the ultimate power to make the developers meet their commitments to the District rests with the Planning Department and its ability to issue permits. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED In response to an inquiry from Chairperson Sullivan, Mr. Swift advised that the "school condition" included is the standard condition. Chairperson Sullivan and Commissioner Arkin suggested that this condition be strengthened. r PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April II, 2001 Page 10