Laserfiche WebLink
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS <br /> <br />Item 6a <br />Resolution of Necessi~. for Eminent Domain Proeeedings (Vineyard Avenue Realignment) <br />(SR 02:188) <br /> <br />Michael Roush presented the staffreport. <br /> <br />Mr. Campbell asked what issues could not be resolved that caused this action. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush responded that agreement could not be reached on fair market value and other <br />issues relative to Mr. Hahner's development agreement, PUD, and the conservation easement. If <br />there were more time, perhaps this could be worked out, but because of the need to provide <br />access for PG&E staffbelieves it needs to move ahead. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico wanted to be certain there were still opportunities for discussion and <br />negotiation while the eminent domain action is proceeding. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated that eminent domain actions often involve the fair market value the <br />public agency is prepared to pay for the property. An appraisal was done on the Hahner property <br />and an offer was made. That offer has not been accepted. Typically, a property owner would <br />retain an appraiser and the City staffwould then evaluate that with the City's appraiser and try to <br />reach some accord in terms of fair market value without having to go through a lengthy legal <br />battle or court proceeding. Some times those issues can only be resolved before a jury. He did <br />not believe there was a big dispute with the Hahners on fair market value. He felt the major <br />issue concerns entitlements the Hahners feel they should receive for their property and whether <br />that is embodied in the PUD or development agreement. There is also an issue with the <br />conservation easement which is a condition of the PUD. There is no reason discussions cannot <br />continue. Staff is seeking possession of the property at this time. Mr. Roush has communicated <br />with Mr. Hahner's attorney and tried every way possible to acquire this property reasonably <br />without having to file the eminent domain action. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala wanted to make certain that all discussions stay within the Specific Plan. Mr. <br />Hahner felt that all his requests were within the terms of the Specific Plan and asked staff to <br />comment on that. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated that some of the requests of Mr. Hahner are within the terms of the <br />Specific Plan, however, there are other issues that may require amendments to the PUD and <br />previously approved development in order to accommodate Mr. Hahner's requests. <br /> <br />Mayor Pico invited public testimony. <br /> <br /> Wayne Hahner, 2287 Vineyard Avenue, believed the main problem was timing. He felt <br />he was a reasonable person and was willing to discuss this. He said he sent comments on the <br />PUD, tentative map, and changes to the conservation easement to Mr. Roush and Mr. Swift and <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council <br />Special Meeting Minutes <br /> <br />6 08/06/02 <br /> <br /> <br />