PC-96-50 - Laserfiche WebLink

Resolution No. PC-96-50 Page 4 8. The proposed driveway entrance from Stoneridge Drive shall be deleted and moved to the project's Bradley Drive street frontage as shown on Exhibit "D". This change shall be shown on the final site, landscape, and grading and drainage plans for review and approval by the Planning Director before issuance of an on-site or building permit. 9. The building wall reveal profile shall match Exhibit "C". This change shall be shown on the final building elevations for review and approval by the Planning Director before issu- ance of a building permit. 10. Final inspection by the Planning Department is required prior to occupancy. II. The developer acknowledges that the City of Pleasanton does not guarantee the availability of sufficient sewer capacity to serve this development by the approval of this case, and that the developer agrees and acknowledges that building permit approval may be withheld if sewer capacity is found by the City not to be available. 12. This approval does not guarantee the availability of sufficient water to serve the project. The City shall withhold building permits for the project if at the time building permits are applied for, mandatory water rationing is in effect, unless the City has adopted a water off- set program and unless the developer is participating in the program. Notwithstanding the developer's participation in such a program, the City may withhold building permits if the City determines that sufficient water is not available at the time of application of building permits. 13. The property owner or its successors in interest (owner) shall enter into a deferred improve- ment agreement with the City of Pleasanton (City) to provide that: a. the owner shall either not protest the establishment of an assessment district, or shall affirmatively vote for the creation of the district or other mechanism to pay the con- struction costs for the I -680/W est Las Positas Boulevard freeway interchange, de- pending on the manner of creation of the funding mechanism; b. the owner retains the right to protest that the allocation of costs among various prop- erties is inequitable under the above-mentioned funding mechanisms; c. in the event the assessment mechanism appears to impose economically infeasible levels of costs upon the site, the City agrees to explore alternative financing methods; and