Laserfiche WebLink
7 <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that it would be a modification of the PUD <br /> conditions of approval to require sidewalks to be placed on both <br /> sides of the street. He thought the change could be made at the <br /> time of the tentative map if Council so desired. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush agreed that this change could be done at the <br />tentative map stage and would be consistent with the PUD. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver referred to Condition 5 and expressed his concern <br />with the City having to exercise eminent domain at the discretion <br />of the developer rather than at its own discretion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift clarified what the condition said. The City "may" <br />exercise eminent domain but is not required to. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush added that the Subdivision Map Act provides that if <br />there is such a condition (Condition 5) and the developer is unable <br />to negotiate a price with the owner of that land within 120 days <br />within the filing of the final map the City Council would then have <br />to take action. If Council did not do so within that time period <br />then the condition for the construction for the site improvements <br />are deemed to be waived. One reason (for Condition 5) is so that <br />the developer will pay the costs to have the City acquire the <br />property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver declared the public hearing open on the <br />application. <br /> <br /> Brad Hirst, representing the applicant and property owners <br />explained that this project had been through a total of five public <br />hearings. During these hearings there was no opposition and had <br />received unanimous votes. He reiterated that the project meets the <br />requirements of the Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan. Mr. Hirst <br />referred to the concerns generated by the Livermore Airport and <br />agreed that there should be notice to the buyers. This will be <br />done through recorded CC&R's and the Department of Real Estate. He <br />pointed out that the School District's concerns have been met. The <br />State passed AB 1287, which states that a 2,500 sq. ft. home would <br />be paying approximately $7,500 to the School District. He <br />requested that Council not require sidewalks on both sides because <br />it reduces the lot sizes and he is trying to maintain a rural <br />atmosphere. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hirst pointed out that Trenery Drive is a private road <br />even though it is in Pleasanton and the south side of the <br />properties are in the County. It is difficult for a property owner <br />who is in the County to use the City conditions to get something <br />from an adjoining property which is in the County. He concluded <br />that they have enjoyed working with adjoining property owners and <br />have submitted ten petitions from these property owners who are in <br /> <br />1/5/93 7 <br /> <br /> <br />