CCMIN100300 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Lure replied that the City of Livermore did. Mayor Tarver inquired about any other requirements that are not yet completed. Ms. Sere indicated staff had provided a memo on this two weeks ago. Since that time several items had been taken care of, such as the deferred improvement agreement for the Vineyard Corridor traffm mitigations. Regarding the habitat issues, the conservation easement over the Foley Pond is imminent since agreement has now been reached with Mr. Foley. Another item is the reconstruction of the Ruby Hill winery. The winery property has been sold to Wentc Brothers, which tins planted the vineyards. Several preliminary designs for the winery have been submitted for review. However, until there is approval of a design for the ~vinery~ no surety company will provide a performance bond for the project. The estimated cost of the winery is $2 million. Mayor Tarvet asked if the winery was a condition of the developer, not Wente. Ms. Seto indicated it was a condition in the County zoning conditions of approval. Signature Properties has sold the property to Wente and the condition goes with the land. Mr. Swim further explained that there is a contract between Signature and Wento in which Wente has agreed to rebuild the winery. There was no time flame in the County approval within which the winery must be built. City staff has asked Sigt~aturc/Wente to provide a performance bond before approval of the final map. He believed there was a way to resolve the bond issue to provide assurance the winery will in fact be reconstructed to look like it did in the past. He believed Wente intended to begin work on the project fairly soon. Mr. Pico asked if Signature Properties would post a bond to guarantee the reconstruction of the winery. Mr. Swirl stated that Signature Propertins has indicated it will enforce its agreement with Wente, through litigation if necessary, to ensure the completion of the winery. Mr. Pico asked if it were within the purview of the Council to require a bond from Signature ProperLies for completion of the winery or for contingencies in other areas. Although he had confidence in staffs estimates, he asked if some additional contingency could be mquimd to cover increased costs of improvements. He asked if the proposed changes were in fact an an~endment to the Development Agreement. Mr. Roush said the Development Agreement was not being amended. If Council wants a performance bond to satisfy the condition, it can do that. kn view of where we are in the process, staff believed them was reasonable assurance that the project would be completed as required without having a bond. Pleasanton City Council 11 10/03/00 Minutes