01b - Laserfiche WebLink

needs. Therefore, the agreement is specific to Vulcan's long-term use of EI Charro Road. He felt it was important as well because they could technically have access out through Stanley, through Pleasanton streets, or ultimately through Livermore and this has been precluded through a previous agreement. So, if this route is not authorized by both agencies, Pleasanton is materially affecting their long-term business operation which is expected to last through 2030. As it relates to the cost sharing agreement, they have agreed to meet and confer over certain improvements. One is EI Charro and one is improvements to the flood plain. Because Livermore is moving ahead first as the constructing agency, there are provisions to ensure those two issues are being dealt with financially. The City of Pleasanton is not financially obligated with this agreement; the County is through the SPA as the developer. He said staff has communicated clearly to them that there is no guarantee that development is going to occur on the Staples Ranch property. While there is an MOU with the intent to fulfill it, based on Council policy, this is still a discretionary act, so the County is taking all of the risk. Councilmember Sullivan asked to point to this in the section of the agreement, and Mr. Bocian referred to the Cost Sharing Agreement, the top of page 2 which states, "Nothing in this agreement is intended to limit Pleasanton's discretionary authority to approve, conditionally approve, or deny Staples Ranch project, as that project is described in the Staples MOU, or as that project may be modified by the Authority or by Pleasanton." Councilmember Sullivan agreed that this language, as well as the breach language, would not allow the City to be in breach of the agreement. Councilmember Sullivan referred to the LOS D at EI Charro and confirmed with the City Manager that initially the agreement required that Pleasanton was at sole responsibility and cost risk to perform any mitigations to return that to LOS D; that since that time staff has worked with Livermore and the County and this is now a pro rata share between Livermore and Pleasanton, which was outlined on page 16, Section 10. Councilmember Sullivan confirmed with the City Manager that given the modification proposed, for whatever reason the City does not want LOS D, it will not lock itself in to the LOS D. However, he said while the City has an interest in LOS D, we may not end up with that level once staff meets and confers with Livermore because of the constrained gateway policy. Councilmember Sullivan thanked staff for resolving these issues. Councilmember Thorne referred to page 4, a certificate of occupancy, and confirmed this term was clear. He questioned when the privately owned road transfers ownership to Pleasanton, and City Manager Fialho said this would be dealt with after Pleasanton had gone through a methodical specific plan process that is suitable to the Council, to the community and Vulcan, because they own that stretch of roadway and he confirmed that however planned for, it was not in concrete that it would ever belong to Pleasanton. Councilmember McGovern questioned if the LOS D was also mentioned in the Cooperative Agreement, and City Manager Fialho said it was and was referred to in the context of, when development occurs, that it has to be at LOS D or better. He said currently it was functioning at LOS A and even with the projected use in the EIR and with the potential prime outlet center, it is projected at being at LOS C. After that moment in time is over, the language referred to in Section 10 is the default language. Mr. Bocian noted this was located on page 21, subsection b and read it out loud. City Council Minutes 5 September 18, 2007