My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
14 ATTACHMENT 1-5
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2022
>
021522
>
14 ATTACHMENT 1-5
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/10/2022 11:41:13 AM
Creation date
2/10/2022 10:22:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
2/15/2022
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Document Relationships
14
(Message)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2022\021522
14 ATTACHMENT 6 - Appendix A - E
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2022\021522
14 ATTACHMENT 6 - Appendix F - I
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2022\021522
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
111
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />5. The design of the subdivision and improvements covered by the proposed vesting <br />tentative subdivision map will not cause substantial environmental damage and <br />avoidably injure fish and/or wildlife or their habitat. <br /> <br />The Project includes project-site specific reports in the areas of geotechnical and <br />biological assessment, which state the site is suitable for the proposed development <br />without substantial environmental damage. The CEQA Initial Study/Consistency Checklist <br />prepared for the Project confirms its consistency with the HVSP Final Environmental <br />Impact Report (FEIR) thus, no additional environmental analysis is required. The City <br />Council finds that the proposed subdivision will not cause any substantial environmental <br />damage or injure fish and/or wildlife or their habitat. <br /> <br />6. The design of the proposed subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to <br />cause serious public health problems. <br /> <br />As proposed and conditioned, the proposed subdivision and improvements will be <br />designed and constructed to meet the applicable City standards pertaining to public health <br />and safety, including public utilities and services, road design and traffic safety, <br />emergency vehicle access, fire hazards, geologic hazards, and flood hazards. In addition, <br />all new structures will be required to comply with the applicable Building and Fire Codes, <br />City codes, and State of California energy requirements. New lots will be required to have <br />independent utility connections subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Thus, <br />the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision will not cause serious public health <br />problems. <br /> <br />7. The design of the subdivision or its related improvements will not conflict with <br />easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property <br />within the proposed subdivision. <br /> <br />Project site title search showed a 16.5-foot public road easement lies within the <br />development area, specifically a segment of the easement across the proposed Lots 8- <br />12. This easement was deeded by the property owners, including the Spotornos, to <br />Alameda County in 1927, it was accepted by Alameda County Board of Supervisors for <br />the “right of way and perpetual easement” for the road but never built. In 2002, the project <br />site was annexed to the City of Pleasanton. Per Government Code §57329, the roadway <br />became the City’s upon annexation. Additionally, per the California Streets and Highways <br />Code §8333, the city may summarily vacate a public service easement if the easement <br />has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated or acquired for five <br />consecutive years immediately preceding the proposed vacation. <br /> <br />On November 3, 2021, the City notified utility agencies of the City’s intent to vacant this <br />decades old unused easement. No objections or comments have been received at the <br />time this report was prepared. <br /> <br />Thus, the City Council find that the design of the subdivision will not have conflict with <br />easements acquired for public use, and that it is appropriate to vacate the easement as <br />requested.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.