CCMIN010593 - Laserfiche WebLink

14 satisfied with the project. He agreed that there was a high need for this type of housing in Pleasanton and asked that Council approve the project. Richard Irby, 3780 Stanley Boulevard, spoke in opposition to this project. He explained that he has met with the applicant two times, the last meeting was three months ago. He felt that the applicant was not making any effort to negotiate in good faith. Mr. Irby objected to this project for the following reasons: 1) not the right area for this type of housing; 2) should remain Commercial; and 3) road alignment is terrible. He also objected to the applicant taking pieces of his property to make the project feasible. Bo Radanovich, Vice-President Kaufman and Broad, agreed that he had met with Mr. Irby twice. Mr. Swift joined the last meeting to establish the history of the right-of-way. The Kaufman and Broad engineers staked Mr. Irby's property for the interim right- of-way and what the ultimate improvements would be. At that time Mr. Irby presented a letter to K & B, listing conditions that he would need in order to reach an agreement. Kaufman and Broad agreed to some of the conditions and included them in the final offer. Mr. Radanovich then explained the alternatives that were presented to Mr. Irby. He was confident that he can reach an agreement with Mr. Irby. He thanked all of the neighbors for all of the input and support they have given to this project. There being no further testimony, Mr. Tarver declared the public hearing closed. Ms. Mohr asked if it was customary that property for a street widening of this sort is dedicated to the City. She asked if it was being purchased in this situation. Mr. Swift explained that the City requires dedication from any developer who is having a major street on their property. In this case, the right-of-way is not on the property that is owned by Kaufman and Broad. When an application does not require reasonable dedication to meet the needs of that particular project then the law requires that fair compensation be paid for the right-of-way taken. The conditions of approval for this item require that that right-of-way be acquired in some fashion. It is Mr. Irby's right to be compensated for it. Because the right-of-way is not being taken from the centerline on both sides, it is fair for Kaufman and Broad to pay for one lane of traffic and Mr. Irby to pay for the other. The interim improvements require more than just one lane of traffic because the sidewalk, turn pockets, etc. would need to be relocated. Ms. Mohr commented that at the time the commercial application came forward, Amador Savings and Loan was involved in the project therefore, she had a conflict of interest and did not participate 1/5/93 14