CCMIN040792 - Laserfiche WebLink

173 Mr. Butler asked if the conditions reflect the open space management as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Swift answered yes. Mr. Tarver asked if the open space was going to be maintained and managed by a property owners association. Mr. Swift stated that the maintenance would be done by a Landscape/Lighting Maintenance District. Mr. Tarver indicated that the standard language for getting approval for growth management and concerning the availability of water was not included in the conditions. He did not support approving this project because he felt that lots 48, 49, and 50 had problems with water location, landslide, and view. He also believed that the open space should be maintained by a homeowners association. Mr. Swift stated that the conditions would be amended to include the growth management and water availability conditions. Ms. Scribner also did not support the project. She was opposed to allowing the developer to build another project because he had on-going problems with an existing project. Ms. Mohr supported the project. She was pleased with the conditions and the agreement that was reached between the City and the developer. Ms. Mohr believed that this project is more of what the City of Pleasanton is accustomed to, rather than the previously proposed project, and felt that the use of the site had been well designed. Mayor Mercer agreed with Ms. Mohr's comments and indicated this was a much better project than was approved by the County. Mayor Mercer supported the project. Ms. Mohr stated that the STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS should include as standard conditions the language about growth management and water and sewer availability. It was moved by Mr. Butler, and seconded by Ms. Mohr, that Resolution No. 92-70 be adopted, certifying that the Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with CEQA and that Council has considered the information in the Final Environmental Impact Report. 4/?/92 5