Laserfiche WebLink
208 <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that the issue is not the number of houses but <br /> the number of people the City is trying to service, because the <br /> number of people can double in existing houses and use twice as <br /> much water. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver proposed that the matter be considered as a public <br /> hearing to get the public's comments and discuss the reasons why <br /> Council will not support what the citizens voted for under the SAVE <br /> Initiative. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer indicated that consideration on the matter will be <br /> continued to the June 18, 1991 City Council meeting as a public <br /> hearing item. <br /> <br /> Item 12b <br /> Termination of the Public Improvement Agreement with Jn <br /> Construction - Tract 5811, Canyon Meadows (SR 91:192) <br /> <br /> Mr. Geoff Etnire, attorney representing JL Construction, <br /> indicated that he had just conferred with Mr. Duncan Matteson of <br /> Canyon Meadows and Mr. Jim Franklin of JL Construction and that <br /> they may have arrived at a possible resolution. He presented a <br /> joint request to the City Council: (1) to authorize Staff to <br /> declare a default under the Public Improvement Agreement and to <br /> make a call on the bond if and when Staff decided it was <br /> appropriate to do so; and (2) to have Staff reexamine the <br /> possibility of eliminating the bicycle lane on the creek side of <br /> Dublin Canyon Way. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer stated that the bicycle trail on the creek side is <br /> important and that the bond should have been called a long time <br /> ago. He indicated that Council would proceed with the hearing, if <br /> necessary. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr commented that Council could give Staff the authority <br /> to call the bond, inform Staff that the trail is important and give <br /> the parties involved a week to settle the problem. <br /> <br /> Mr. Duncan Matteson, Canyon Meadows, indicated that he had no <br /> objection to the proposal that the bond would be called if a <br /> determination is reached that the bike lane should not be <br /> eliminated. <br /> <br /> Mr. Etnire stated that if Staff decides that the bike lane <br /> should be constructed and JL Construction shows the ability to do <br /> it, there would be no need to call the bond. He added, however, <br /> that he had no objection to Staff calling the bond in a week if no <br /> progress is made on the negotiations. <br /> <br /> - 32 - <br /> 5-21-91 <br /> <br /> <br />