Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Roush said it was acceptable to separate the matters unless the Council <br />considered the easement to be an integral part of the PUD. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan believed that if a different easement were drafted, it could be <br />brought back to Council for consideration. It will be a while before the project can move <br />forward. <br /> <br />Ms. Ayala wanted to approve the ordinance and bring back the easement later. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico wanted to make certain the Land Trust continued to be a third party <br />beneficiary. If there were any other modification, he would be willing to continue it. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan indicated the basic concept that was decided at the last meeting <br />was who will hold the trust. Staff could work on the easement and bring it back later if <br />there are any substantial changes, but there would be no change on who holds the <br />easement. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti said there were other properties involved. If there is language that <br />needs to be changed, that is acceptable. But if the whole thing changes, she wanted to see <br />it again. <br /> <br /> M. Roush believed the issues were more fundamental. Mr. Hahner's issue is the <br />involvement of the Land Trust in the conservation easement. Other issues like use of <br />pesticides and fertilizers could be discussed later. However, the fundamental <br />disagreement that Mr. Hahner has is the involvement of the Land Trust. If there is no <br />interest in revisiting that, there is no point in continuing it. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hahner said it is not absolutely necessary to exclude the Land Trust, but the <br />way it is written now, the Land Trust has all the authority to mandate what goes on the <br />property and the property owner has no control. He was willing to leave the Land Trust <br />as a third party, but on a much more limited basis. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico said the fundamental issue is to include the Land Trust and there <br />could be changes in the wording or conditions as long as it is consistent with that. <br />Council could proceed to approve the ordinance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush believed that Mr. Hahner apparently does not object to the Land Trust <br />being a third party beneficiary, but in a much more limited role. That can be discussed to <br />make certain it is consistent with what the Specific Plan provides and with the Council <br />direction. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico believed that the director of the Land Trust was content with a limited <br />role in monitoring the easement. The purpose is to protect the long-term agricultural <br />viability of the property. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 2 03/20/01 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />