CCMIN030601 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Roush clarified that if the Land Trust were a third party beneficiary and if it felt the City was not doing its job to enforce the provisions of the easement, then the Land Trust would have the right under the contract to enforce the provisions itself. It would not have those rights if it were not a third party beneficiary. The other aspect of a third party beneficiary is that if some time in the future the City no longer felt it necessary to have the easement, it could quitclaim the easement back to the property owner if the City were the sole holder of the easement. The conservation easement would then no longer exist. Ifa third party beneficiary were involved, the concurrence of the third party would be necessary to dissolve the easement. Ms. Michelotti felt that if the easement were given in perpetuity, how could a future Council dissolve it? Mr. Roush said it is in perpetuity only so long as the holder of the easement wants it. Ms. Michelotti asked whether a third party seeking to enforce the terms of the easement would deal directly with the City or with the property owner? Mr. Roush said for practical purposes, it would deal with the City. Technically, the third party would have its own independent right to file a lawsuit against the property owner or the city for noncompliance. Ms. Dennis believed that the City was the monitoring agent for the Land Trust. She understood the concerns of Mr. Hahner, however she assured him it would be the City that would most involved. Mr. Moore reiterated there was only one issue of concern, but overall, it was a great project and he thanked all those involved. Mary Roberts, 1666 Vineyard Avenue, indicated she had no problem with Delco Builders' project. It has been extremely cooperative and she liked the project. The model easement before Council is 100% better than the one proposed to the Planning Commission two weeks ago. The prior version allowed for termination of the easement without consulting the Land Trust. She felt this parcel is part of the South Livermore Valley and it was important to have the Land Trust involved in order to remove political influence. Another concern of hers was the fact that the easement for the house and barns was not delineated. It is necessary to plant the vineyards immediately to allow Delco to get permits for some of its lots. She believed that other twenty-acre vineyard parcels that allowed two acres for building had all the buildings in one place, not divided as proposed. She also was concerned that this twenty-acre vineyard was being whittled down, first by two acres for building, then by two acres for an orchard. According to the Specific Plan, this parcel is supposed to be the big vineyard in the area. She said the Planning Commission suggested deleting Lot 31 became of design issues. As one travels down Vineyard, this is where the major cluster of houses in the area will be located. Pleasanton City Council 9 03/06/01 Minutes