PC 101001 - Laserfiche WebLink

/'"" Commissioner Kameny inquired if the applicant posts papers up-front for improvement bonds, performance bonds, and tax bonds to repay their property taxes prior to final map recordation. Ms. Seto said yes. Commissioner Arkin commented that because the City grants extensions of approvals, the City should also be allowed extensions by developers. He cited the City's position with respect to the City's agreement with Standard Pacific concerning the north and south alignment of Stoneridge Drive extension. Ms. Seto clarified that these are two distinct kinds of situations. She explained that Mardel is going through a statutory process under the State Subdivision Map Act and part of that process is through the City's PUD process, which allows for a one-year extension. The Stoneridge Drive extension, on the other hand, has a separate agreement between the City and the developer which impacts the timing for the developer's project. There are also other issues in that project that are currently in litigation. She pointed out that there have been situations in which developers have agreed to provide the City with additional time to study the project or dedication of parklands. With respect to Commissioner Kameny's question if the Subdivision Map Act allows the City to grant extensions and add conditions in the process, Ms. Seto replied that this extension is through the City's PUD ordinance. She differentiated it from the Tentative Map process in which State law provides specific protections such that Tentative Maps submitted and considered complete are effectively locked in with the rules at the time of approval. r- Commissioner Arkin stated that he would like to add the standard condition for homes regarding providing first opportunity to people who work in Pleasanton. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Phil Rowe, Deleo Builders, 2552 Stanwell Dr. #203, Concord, stated that normally, two years is sufficient time to go from an approved PUD to Final Map. He explained that the project underwent a one-year delay when the Fish and Wildlife Service was concerned about the whipsnake habitat in the ridge area, and because the agency was understaffed, there was no time to look at specific pieces of property to see if they are habitats. In effect, the agency "drew" a broad ring and all parcels within that ring were required to pay into a mitigation bank for whipsnake habitat. Mr. Rowe stated that a survey on this site was done during the approval process and it was determined that the property was not a whipsnake habitat. Nevertheless, based on the Fish and Wildlife Service's biological report assessment, the developer was required to purchase some credits because the Service claims that the site could be a potential migratory path for the whipsnake. Mr. Rowe advised that all the environmental permits have been in place since June 2001. With about 200 conditions and four parties to satisfy - the Lemoines, EBRPD, Ms. Sorensen, and Mardel - more time was needed to work on the easements and a number of issues affecting the parties. With respect to the $145,000 obligation to EBRPD, Mr. Rowe stated that this would be settled within a few days once the issues surrounding the easements and the road maintenance agreements are completed. .-- October 10, 2001 Page 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES