Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Resolution No. PC-96-28 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />EXHIBIT "B" <br />Case PUD-80-16-10D <br />Conditions Of Approval <br />April 24, 1996 <br /> <br />I. Development of the subject property shall be substantially as shown on the development <br />plans, Exhibit "A", dated "Received March 29, 1996" on file with the Planning Department, <br />except as modified by the following conditions. Minor changes to the plans may be <br />allowed subject to the approval of the Planning Director if found to be in substantial <br />conformance to the approved exhibits. <br /> <br />2. This design review approval will lapse within one (1) year from the date of approval unless <br />a building permit is issued and construction has commenced and is diligently pursued <br />toward completion or an extension has been approved by the City. <br /> <br />3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall pay any and all fees, including <br />but not limited to the applicable Zone 7, City connection fees and costs for water meters <br />including irrigation meters, applicable Dublin San Ramon Services District sewer permit <br />fees, etc., to which the property may be subject, the type and amount of the fees to be those <br />in effect at the time the building permit is issued. The developer shall also pay the required <br />commercial development school impact fee as prescribed by state law and as adopted by <br />the Pleasanton Unified School District. <br /> <br />4. The property owner or its successors in interest (owner) shall enter into a deferred <br />improvement agreement with the City of Pleasant on (City) to provide that: <br /> <br />a. the owner shall either not protest the establishment of an assessment district, or shall <br />affirmatively vote for the creation of the district or other mechanism to pay the <br />construction costs for the I -680/W est Las Positas Boulevard freeway interchange, <br />depending on the manner of creation of the funding mechanism; <br /> <br />b. the owner retains the right to protest that the allocation of costs among various <br />properties is inequitable under the above-mentioned funding mechanisms; <br /> <br />c. in the event the assessment mechanism appears to impose economically infeasible <br />levels of costs upon the site, the City agrees to explore alternative financing methods; <br />and <br /> <br />d. if, with consent by the owner, Section VIII of the previous agreement between the <br />City and Robert E. Meyer, dated June 22, 1982 and recorded as Document No. <br />82-140679, is substantially changed so that it no longer coincides with the wording of <br />this condition, that this condition shall be superseded by the revised agreement. <br />