RES 96055 - Laserfiche WebLink

RESOLUTION NO. 96-55 EXHIBIT B PUD-80-16-11D PUD Development Plan/Conditions of Approval May 21, 1996 1. Development shall be substantially as shown on the development plans, Exhibit "A", dated "Received, May 3, 1996", on file with the Planning Department consisting of a preliminary schematic site plan, grading/drainage/utility plan, and landscape plan; building floor plans and elevations; and building/site sign designs and details; except as modified by the follow- ing conditions. Minor changes to the plans may be allowed subject to the approval of the Planning Director if found to be in substantial conformance to the approved exhibits. 2. The PUD development plan approval will lapse within two (2) years from the date of ap- proval unless a building permit is issued and construction has commenced and is diligently pursued toward completion or an extension has been approved by the City. 3. Prior to issuance of a building and/or foundation permit, the developer shall pay any and all fees to which the subject property may be subject including, but not limited to: water me- ters including irrigation meters, applicable Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) sewer permit fees, the required commercial development school fee prescribed by state law and adopted by the Pleasanton Unified School District. The type and amount of the fees shall be those in effect at the time the building/foundation permit is issued. 4. 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 of the 1-680/West Las Positas Boulevard fleeway interchange, depend- ing on the manner of creation of the funding mechanism; b. the owner retains the right to protest that the allocation of costs among the various properties is inequitable under the above-mentioned funding mechanism; c. in the event that the assessment mechanism appears to impose economically infeasi- ble levels of costs upon the site, the City agrees to explore alternative financing meth- ods; and City Council Resolution No. 96-55 May 21, 1996 PUD-80-16-11D Page 1