CCMIN080602 - Laserfiche WebLink

requested a meeting to discuss those items. He was told that Mr. Swift would provide a point by point written response and he has still not received that. He did not believe the Specific Plan had matured to the point where it was reasonable to expect it will ever be built out, especially with the current volatile market. Building the road is a condition of the entitlements to the property. He did not believe any entitlements had been conferred to anyone in the Vineyard Corridor. The final maps on various properties are not ready, although the one for his property is very close to submittal. He believed the electrical transmission line is an entirely separate matter. That is the responsibility of the California Public Utilities Commission and not within the purview of the City Council. The permit is for either the existing Vineyard Avenue or the new Vineyard Avenue with no preference for either. He did not believe there was a new Vineyard Avenue because no entitlements had been granted and there were no dedications. He felt if Council condemned his property, it would be acting as surrogates for PG&E. It would not solve the City's problems in developing the Specific Plan. He asked Council to postpone its decision until the next regular meeting to give all parties a change to work out what he felt were minor differences. He agreed to comply with the Specific Plan. One of the issues was that Mr. Heaton had an option for the Costas property (now owned by John McCurdey) and the Hahner property. The tentative map and PUD integrated the two properties in a way that cannot go forward. That has to be sorted out. RJA Engineering is working with Mr. McCurdey and a new map will soon be before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hahner was concerned the road will be graded, PG&E will install its 230 kV transmission line and the road will not be built leaving an ugly scar there for many years. He believed it was necessary for several other developers to proceed with their projects in order to get the road built. If there is no development, who will pay for the road and will it ever get built? He again asked for a two-week delay. Mayor Pico asked staffto respond whether the road will be built and the financing of it. He felt there were two issues; one is the ability to complete construction of the road and infrastructure and the other is the reimbursement by property owners as they develop. Mr. Roush indicated that Council had approved an agreement with the School District which formed a financing partnership to build the road. One of the conditions of the property owners to dedicate the road to the City at no cost was a guarantee by the City that the road would be built. That doesn't guarantee residential development immediately after, but there is an obligation on the part of the City to build the road. That will start in spring 2003. The question is whether the City and District will be reimbursed for costs in excess of their shares. The answer is yes and that will come from Specific Plan fees as residential development occurs. Those fees will also be used by other residential developers to build infrastructure such as a sewer pump station or other utilities. Mr. Campbell inquired about Mr. Hahner's statement about inferring entitlements. Mr. Roush said Council has granted PUDs, vesting tentative maps, and development agreements for properties along the Corridor. He felt that has conferred vested entitlements. None of them have proceeded to final maps as yet, but that is expected in a short period of time. He believed those documents evidenced significant land use entitlements. Pleasanton City Council Special Meeting Minutes 7 08/06/02