CCMIN071691 - Laserfiche WebLink

307 Mr. McKeehan then discussed two issues presented in the Staff Report: (1) the handling of the design review issues. Signature Properties has submitted to City Staff a concept of the architectural review guidelines to be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Staff will then ensure that each of the 700+ custom homes meet the criteria of the guidelines prior to the issuance of a building permit. (2) the review of tentative and final map. Under the proposed Preannexation Agreement, the improvement plan and final map will be processed through the City even if annexation procedures have not been completed. The process suggested for the tentative map is to have City Staff, as well as the Planning Commission and City Council, if desired, review the proposed tentative map and have the recommendations incorporated in the tentative map to be presented to the County. It is suggested that the City and County processes proceed concurrently. Ms. Mohr stated that it was her understanding from representatives from the School District that Signature Properties had made a commitment to the District to build a school on the site. She requested Mr. McKeehan to clarify Section 6 of the Agreement, which indicate that the developer would pay school impact fees and participate in a capital fee program for the construction of facilities in the school district. Mr. McKeehan replied that Mr. Tom Treto, who represented the School District in the negotiations, had conveyed to him at one of their meetings that the School District was not interested in land because it was too far out for the District. Instead, the District asked that the developer participate in a capital improvement program, which would mean paying more than the $1.58 per square foot called for by state law. He indicated that the developer had agreed to do that, on condition that all development projects would participate in the District's capital improvement plan. He added that the School District had some proposals that would be presented to the developers in two weeks. Mr. David Eller, 3797 Oregon Way in Livermore, expressed concern and reservation about the Project. He stated that Ruby Hill has historically been listed as a Livermore Valley winery with a Pleasanton address, and a few years ago, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) extended Pleasanton's sphere-of- influence to Isabel Avenue on the south side of Vineyard Avenue. He pointed out that the Ruby Hill project will be built on the largest single block of fine vineyard land in the Valley and urged the Council to join Livermore in its lawsuit against the County. - 11 - 7-16-91