My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 05:069B
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2005
>
SR 05:069B
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2005 1:59:43 PM
Creation date
3/10/2005 12:54:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
3/15/2005
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 05:069B
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
· 46. When we visited you and your family in Montana in summer of 2002, you <br /> informed me that you had a condominium project pending that may require you to <br /> accelerate the selling of your property in Pleasanton. Again, you mentioned your <br /> desire for us to own this property, since you felt that we provided the <br /> improvements. And again, we told you as much as we love to, that we are not in a <br /> financial position to do so. <br />· 47. Meanwhile, I submitted and presented a plan to City of Pleasanton for a <br /> preliminary review. <br />· 48. In this review became evident that despite number of discussions with <br /> planning director, and staff the pedestrian path will continue to be a problem. <br />· 49. At that time I told you that in good conscious I can no longer represent you <br /> since, your objective of developing your property is in direct conflict with our <br /> objective of delaying the installation of the path as long as possible. <br />· 50. You again, brought up the idea of us purchasing your property. <br />· 51. We told you since our objective would be not to develop and sub-divide this <br /> property until our planned move from this house in ten years. It would be very <br /> difficult for us to offer you the value that you were looldng to get out of this <br /> property. <br />· 52. You said to make you an offer; you then again mentioned that you would be <br /> willing to give us a $100,000 discount since you morally felt, that you owe us for <br /> half of the improvement cost. <br />· 53. In early 2003, we made you an offer over the phone, after discussing with <br /> Karen, you came back to us and said we have a deal, and we should send you a <br /> contract. <br />· 54. We did so, aRer not hearing from you for few days, I called to see what the <br /> status is. <br />· 55. You informed me that your partners in Montana believe that you should not <br /> go through with this arrangement, and you also, have another buyer who has <br /> offered you a higher value and better ten-ns. <br />· 56. By this time, we were getting a lot of pressure from the city to install our <br /> portion of the Path along Sycamore Terrace. <br />· 57. As you told me about your new potential buyers. I asked you to please <br /> convey to them our objection to the path and the fact that we would be fighting it. <br />· 58. At this time I also met with Brian Swirl, now a retired Planning Director to <br /> let him know that, even though we are going to put our portion of the path in to <br /> complete our project obligation. We will still be fighting placement of the portion <br /> along your property when the time comes. He suggested as we will fight that, we <br /> should also come up with a possible path plan that we can live with as a back up <br /> plan. I called you and shared with you this conversation. <br />· 59. I faxed you a drawing which showed the same bow on the path as we are <br /> discussing now, plus extending it further down you lot number three. <br />· 60. You told me you will share this with the potential buyers to get their feed <br /> back. <br />· 61. I asked you for two things: <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.