Laserfiche WebLink
( cooperate with Council and explained his intention to enter the Town as a <br /> `, friend. Dr. Hau especially thanked Tryon for encouraging people to send <br /> letters regarding his project to the Council since the public hearing was <br /> closed. He noted that he had had a model made of the project for <br /> Council's reference and reiterated that he had reduced the proposed concert <br /> hall by half and had reduced the secondary unit to 1,000 square feet. Dr. <br /> Hau was in agreement with most of the conditions but did have questions <br /> about some of them. <br /> Dr. Hau, applicant, first questioned condition #5 staring that the Santa Clara <br /> Valley Water District could take one to two years to approve a <br /> maintenance plan for Adobe Creek. Wendell Roscoe, applicant's designer, <br /> noted that Dr. Hau had received a request from the Water District for an <br /> easement so they could do the work after the plans were completed and <br /> this easement was in the process. <br /> The Director of Public Works commented that a bond was a possibility as there <br /> was a need for the Town to get involved in the process and be assured that <br /> the work would get done. <br /> Siegel suggested a contract with the Town that the work would get done within <br /> a five year period but Mr. Spanner, Dr. Hau's attorney, stated that there <br /> was no assurance when the work would be done by the Water District and <br /> he believed it was a low priority on their list of things to do. <br /> PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To amend condition #5 to read: "The development <br /> of this property is subject to the rehabilitation and adoption of a <br /> maintenance plan for Adobe Creek to be approved by Town Staff and the <br /> Santa Clara Valley Water District, or a bond assuring the completion of <br /> any required work is placed with the Town prior to issuance of building <br /> permits. The form and the amount of the bond are to the satisfaction of <br /> the Public Works Director." <br /> Dr. Hau, applicant, questioned condition #9 stating that the toxics had all been <br /> removed but he was concerned with the bureaucracy of getting a letter <br /> from the Health Department stating that this was the case. Staff noted that <br /> there was a very clearly stated series of steps involved which Dr. Hau had <br /> to follow regarding the removal of toxics and the conditions imposed by <br /> the Health Department had to be met. <br /> Dr. Hau, applicant, questioned condition #10 regarding the installation of a <br /> residential fire protection sprinkler system and stated that he believed this <br /> ibEW <br /> December 5, 1990 <br /> 6 <br />