My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN100300
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
CCMIN100300
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:32 AM
Creation date
11/20/2000 5:32:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/3/2000
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN100300
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Ms. Miehelotti asked if the buyer was aware of the condition when it bought the <br />property and is the condition still binding? <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush explained that the condition of approval was imposed on the initial <br />developer. He assumed the contract between Signature and Wente would include that <br />obligation. Mr. Pieo's question was whether Council could require security' from <br />Signature to insure the winery would be built. The City would hold that security until <br />permits were approved and Wente would a provide performance bond. Staff feels there <br />is enough interest in having that occur so it is just a question of timing. There have been <br />a number of plans submitted and staff believes Wen~ is reputable and will fulfill the <br />obligation. It has indicated a willingness to post the bond as soon as the design is <br />approved. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver asked if somewhere in the documents there is a requirement that <br />the developer will execute a school impact agreement with the School District. Has that <br />been done? <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush responded that there are conditions that the developer will pay school <br />impact l~es as required by state law and will participate in a capital fee program as <br />approved by Pleasanton for the construction of school facilities. Staffs opinion is that <br />this condition is satisfied because the developer has entered into the Cooperative <br />Agreement. The developer is not in default or breach under that agreement. <br /> <br />Mayor Tarver asked if the developer was in default, the District would work that <br /> <br />out. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said the District has sent a letter saying there will be a shortfall. <br />Signature has a period of time within which to pay the shortfall or arrange for funding. <br />That time has not yet nm. There is no way to say that Signature is in breach. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver reiterated that this final map was the last approval for this <br />development. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush stated that if Council approves the final map, this is the last map for <br />this project. That is not to say there will be no other issues before Council, such as the <br />design review lbr the winery. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico asked if it would be within the purview of Council to ask for additional <br />security to guarantee the shortfall is covered? <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said it was oatside Coancil's purview. The Cooperative Fee <br />Agreement itself provides assurances to fund school facilities. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pieo did not understand why there was a difference in demanding assurance <br />or security for payment of the shortfall just as security is required for completion of <br />habitat or streets. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 13 10/03/00 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.