CCMIN071602 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Brozosky asked if it were possible to finish the agreement and get the grading done by August. Ms. McKeehan felt it was possible to meet the time frame for PG&E. Mr. Brozosky asked if the Preannexation Agreement with Signature Properties covered the fees for this road. Mr. Roush said there is debate with Signature representatives regarding the terms of the agreement in terms of the denominator for computing the percentage of reimbursement. Those discussions have been ongoing for some time, however the obligation does not technically arise until after the costs have been incurred. Until the money is spent, there is nothing to force the issue. Mr. Brozosky pointed out that Signature advanced the costs for improvements to the S curve and asked if they were receiving interest on that account until all this is settled? Mr. Roush said that is one of the items under discussion. Cindy McGovem, Pleasanton Unified School District Board of Trustees member, indicated she had come to the meeting to celebrate a unanimous vote by the Board on this matter. She felt people should be proud of the community, the Council, the School Board, and the staff of both entities, as well as the development community in the Vineyard Corridor. This is an extremely complex issue. Developers have been working to try to reduce the costs of the infrastructure and have worked with the permitting agencies to keep this process moving forward. The District and City staffhave been working on this continuously. This is an exemplary example of District/City/developer cooperation. We can do three things for the community: put in the PG&E transmission far from the school site and residents; bring energy to the community to prevent brownouts; and have a safe road. She thanked everyone for this. Ms. Michelotti pointed out that there are already plans for the school. Ms. McGovern expressed appreciation for an exemplary developer fee agreement. The developers advanced $8.5 million, which is less than it would cost the District to build the school, and went through the process of getting the State Architects' approval for construction. That took a lot of time and energy. The goal has always been to resolve the issue for the community, the District, and the City. Ms. Ayala asked about other zoning for that property. She wanted assurance that the District intended to build a school. Ms. McGovem said the School Board would never agree to a financing plan if it did not have every intention of constructing the school. She felt there was a shared vision for this and the goals of the District include that school. However, she did not believe the school could be opened by September 2003. Pleasanton City Council 16 07/16/02 Minutes