01b - Laserfiche WebLink

the cooperation agreement establishes the design, construction and vehicular access requirement for EI Charro Road. He noted the key terms of the Cooperation Agreement Mr. Bocian said the purpose of the Cost Sharing Agreement is to determine cost sharing for EI Charro Road and flood control and EI Charro/I-580 interchange improvements. There are three parties involved with the agreement; the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore and the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority (SPA). He noted the key terms involved in the Cost Sharing Agreement. Mr. Bocian said at present, all of the agencies have approved both agreements, the cost sharing agreement is subject to a final legal review, staff is expecting to have this next week, approval of the resolutions will authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement and he noted Section 8 is an example where staff feels clarity is needed. City Manager Fialho said since the drafting of the staff report, staff has identified two areas and feel we can engage with the County and Livermore to resolve concerns. Section 8 is the breach of contract provision which is narrowly defined, and staff wants it to be more general and apply to all sections of the agreement. Section 10 relates to (level of service) LOS D provision; if it exceeds LOS D, the city automatically wants to establish a mechanism to require both agencies to meet and bring this back to LOS D, which is consistent with the 1996 general plan. Staff is moving towards, and Livermore already has, a constrained gateway policy. So, it may make sense to have flexibility with this intersection to maintain a constrained gateway policy, which may be higher than LOS D, and allowing for this language is important to both parties. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she appreciates the extra staff work in clarifying the language. Councilmember McGovern referred to the Cost Sharing Agreement, page 14, Section 7.5, and asked if the language of the section had been clarified, and if not, she asked this to be added to the list for further review. Mr. Bocian said there was a question and agreed clarity was needed. Councilmember McGovern voiced concern in approving an agreement that was not quite clarified, and City Manager Fialho said similarly with the BART financing agreement, staff can circulate the agreement individually. Councilmember McGovern referred to the many exhibits which were not attached to the agreements, and she asked that these be provided. Councilmember McGovern confirmed with Mr. Bocian that the agreements do nothing to the agreement for Pleasanton Garbage Service to use the Hanson Road for their trucks going to Dublin. She confirmed with the City Manager that there were no impacts on how the City looks at designing EI Charro Road to Stanley as an extension, except that the City must meet with Vulcan and ensure that the ultimate design of EI Charro is incorporated into the east side specific plan process. She confirmed that if the open space initiative passes, it does not affect the agreement in any way. Councilmember Sullivan questioned why was the City's urgency in moving forward with the agreement now, as the City was not ready to develop Staples Ranch yet. City Manager Fialho said as it relates to the Cooperation Agreement, Vulcan Materials has insisted that before any development occurs on either side of EI Charro, that the terms and conditions of future use are resolved. He said the entire EI Charro stretch is in Pleasanton's sphere of influence, Livermore requires access to EI Charro to service the new prime retail development outlet, and because they are ahead of Pleasanton, the city is trying to be good neighbors and recognize business City Council Minutes 4 September 18, 2007