Laserfiche WebLink
Chairperson Wilson said that with the Commission's concurrence he would <br />like to go over the mitigating conditions starting on Page No. 15, Item <br />No. 58. Chairperson Wilson asked why Condition No. 61 was deleted. <br />Mr. Harris said this condition could be best addressed under the tenta- <br />tive map approval. Chairperson Wilson addressed Condition No. 62 <br />regarding signalization and whether or not this was something that <br />was beyond the developer's control inasmuch as it requires approval <br />of Cal-Trans and the Federal Government. Mr. Warnick said that Cal- <br />Trans acts for the Federal Government in this area and that Cal-Trans <br />said they wouldn't object as long as it involves no cost to the State. <br />Chairperson Wilson addressed Condition No. 64 relating to assessment <br />districts. Mr. Warnick said the size of the area would benefit from <br />interchange improvements and it could handle an assessment district <br />as well as other improvements. <br />Harvey Levine said it is the City's intention to have an agreement drawn <br />up dealing with dispute procedure that will provide the procedure and <br />exactly how it will be determined and in a most expeditious matter. <br />Chairperson Wilson addressed Condition No. 65 regarding W. Las Positas. <br />Mr. Harris explained. <br />Commissioner Lindsey asked about Condition No. 64. Mr. Harris explained <br />a fire study will be prepared. <br />Commissioner Doherty said he would like to add that any building over <br />two stories be sprinklered throughout. Discussion then ensured regarding <br />Conditions No. 66 through 70, and 71 through 75. Chairperson Wilson asked <br />about Condition No. 76 asking if all of the property will be brought <br />into the assessment district. Mr. Warnick said the LDS church owns <br />some property in the area and they would benefit by the district. <br />Chairperson Wilson then asked if the City has authorized the hiring <br />of a consultant to determine this. Mr. Warnick said the recommendation <br />will be brought to the City Council in the near future. <br />Concerning the mitigated negative declaration, Chairperson Wilson asked <br />if it would be proper to add a condition which says "That the developer <br />be allowed to process his application to the final subdivision map stage <br />and that actual building permits be withheld until formation of the <br />assessment district for the improvements as set forth in the North <br />Pleasanton Traffic Study, Volume 2, has been done. The City Attorney <br />said a condition such as this would be legal. A poll was then taken <br />concerning this condition with Commissioners Jamieson, Doherty, Lindsey <br />and Getty stating they would be in favor of this condition being added <br />to the staff report. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Doherty, seconded by Commissioner <br />Getty to recommend approval of the mitigated negative declaration for <br />case PUD-80-16 because any adverse impacts caused by this development <br />can be mitigated by Conditions 58 through 79 as shown in the staff <br />report of 3/11/81 plus the condition just stated by Chairperson Wilson. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />Ayes: Commissioners Doherty, Getty and Lindsey <br />Noes: Commissioners Jamieson and Wilson <br />Resolution No. 1961 was then entered and adopted recommending approval <br />of the negative declaration prepared for case PUD-80-16. <br />-4- <br /> <br />