CCMIN021798 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pico felt the property owners in the process were not without clout in this situation because they can delay the process. He encouraged the Greenbriar developers to negotiate in good faith with the families. He would find it difficult to initiate condemnation proceedings. Ms. Acosta said sometimes there is a request for a condemnation proceeding in order to set a price for the property. Mayor Tarver believed the key point is to find the PUD consistent. The City approved the North Sycamore Specific Plan which stated how we wanted this property to develop. He had hoped Greenbriar would have worked out alternatives that satisfied all the neighbors. He did not want the City to take sides. He did not want to get involved in eminent domain proceedings and if eminent domain proceedings were not done, there still would be a tentative map. Ms. Ayala had no reason to believe the developer would not work with the property owners in good faith. She said Council has made it clear it did not want to participate in eminent domain proceedings. Mayor Tarver understood that if the PUD was consistent with everything else, the Council had to approve the tentative map. Then what grounds does Council have in telling Greenbriar the PUD was not satisfactory. Ms. Acosta said Greenbriar had been told; thus, the City would not be subject to liability. Mr. Pico said eliminating Condition No. 6 might provide Council with maximum flexibility and not be committed in any way. He considered Condition No. 6 as restricting the Council in regards to condemnation. Mr. Swift advised that Council not remove Condition No. 6. The tentative map includes the properties that Greenbriar was purchasing. It does not necessarily include the off-site street improvements. It was a requirement that the existing Sycamore Road connect to Road A or there would be not project. Condition No. 6 was constructed in such a way to make sure the roads would be connected prior to tentative map approval. Mr. Pico asked if just the last sentence of Condition No. 6 could be eliminated? Ms. Acosta said that was put in there to protect the city's interests. Condition No. 6 is basically saying if Council was not satisfied, then the plan would have to go through the process again. Mr. Pico said prior to the second reading there could be some clarification on the issue. He had concerns about the one acre lot sizes on Sycamore Road and whether the city was deviating from a commitment to the neighborhood. He was in favor of the secondary units but Pleasanton City Council 2/17/98 Minutes 21