CCMIN081396 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Michelotti did not think this was an easy decision. The number one thing is to get something done and soon. There was additional matefiat given in the report and the information from Mr. HahneL She would feel more comfortable if all the pieces of the puzzle were here. She understood the concerns of Signature in putting up a million dollars when the reimbursement is unknown. She asked staff if there was more information to allay her fears in forcing the issue and going forward fight now. Mr. Lum indicated staff has considered for some time all of Signature Properties' issues as well as those of Mr. Hahner. It is difficult to address the concerns of Signature based on its assumption that there will be more development in the Corridor and the roadway expenses would be less. He did not think it was possible to amend the reimbursement agreement at this time to satisfy Signature's expectations. When the specific plan is developed there will be more information with which to base staff s consideration and there could be a different approach. Ms. Michelotti wanted discussion about the preannexation agreement and how strong the language was. Was it a condition that Ruby Hill straighten the "S" curve? Or was the city going to straighten the road and expect Signature to join in the cost? What is the nexus issue? Also, wasn't there discussion about some benefit to Signature for the roadway improvements it had already made or were going to make on another part of Vineyard? Ms. Acosta stated those discussions involved what Council ultimately wanted to do with the roadway and were a separate discussion. What has been stated by Signature Properties and by the Mayor are both accurate as to the discussions that took place at the time. But the discussions took place at different points in time. There were several roadway designs before Council which were problematic in trying to meet all the concerns of all the property owners. That caused a great deal of the delay in getting the ultimate plans approved. There is a sefies of events which caused the delay in getting these reimbursement agreements before Council. There were discussions going back to the annexation of Ruby Hill. The development had been approved and there were going to be some impacts, including traffic, on the community and there would also be some benefits from a revenue standpoint, so why not annex to Pleasanton. There were also discussions about additional traffic improvements that could be added that the County had not included in its approval. There was not a condition of approval that specifically requires construction of the Vineyard "S" curve. It was an issue of advancing funds if Engineefing felt that the improvements to the "S" curve needed to be done. There were lots of questions and directions and pressure to staff to proceed as quickly as possible with the design of the roadway. Staff attempted to do that, but there were very detailed negotiations necessary, which continued for a number of Council meetings in trying to meet everyone's concerns. Ms. Michelotti requested clarification that the condition for the road was not in the County approval, but the preannexation agreement alluded to that although it was not required. Ms. Acosta indicated the agreement set for the condition that there be a reimbursement formula if it was necessary to advance funds for the roadway. Ultimately, Signature would pay 08/13/96 -11-