Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Ayala wanted to make certain that the Council's action to approve the eminent <br />domain procedure did not preclude staff continuing to discuss the issues with Mr. Hahner point <br />by point. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said staffis prepared to do that. If agreement is reached in a timely manner <br />then there would be no need for the eminent domain action and it would be dismissed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked if there was any dispute on the amount of land required from Mr. <br />Hahner for the road. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush did not think there was a question that the City was taking more land than was <br />necessary for the road or temporary construction easement. There was a lot of effort in the road <br />design to minimize impacts on the Hahners. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico referred to Hahner's comment that the road would not be built and there would <br />be a scar across the land. He was certain the road would be built. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said the development agreement expressly provides that if the developers <br />dedicate the right of way to the City, the City would proceed to construct the road. He felt it was <br />a certainty that the road would be built in the spring. Although technically he does not have <br />signed agreements on his desk, the form has been approved and have been sent for signature and <br />there has been no indicated from any of the property owner that there is any concern. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan pointed out the City had not wanted to execute the agreements until it had <br />an agreement with the School District on the financing. Once the City Council takes action on <br />this matter and the City has possession of the property, it will sign the development agreements. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti reiterated the road will go forward. She asked staff what effect a two- <br />week delay would have on meeting the deadline for the PG&E line. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated PG&E had met with the staffofthe CPUC and expressed concern <br />the City of Pleasanton would not be able to provide the new route for Vineyard Avenue and had <br />asked for a change to the order to allow them to put the line in old Vineyard Avenue. Mr. <br />Grubstick and he will meet with the CPUC staff to assure them that the City is doing everything <br />possible to meet the deadline. Mr. Roush felt if he was 100% certain to have an agreement in <br />two weeks that would be one thing, but if there is a delay and no agreement at the end, then the <br />schedule for the grading is delayed that long and he could not recommend that. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan wanted to be able to present the eminent domain action on Thursday as <br />one more reason the City is doing all it can to make the road a reality. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hahner referred to the fact that no development agreement has been signed and asked <br />why there was more concern about his agreement than other property owners? He asked for a <br />two week delay and believed there was a 95% chance of solving differences. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council <br />Special Meeting Minutes <br /> <br />8 08/06/02 <br /> <br /> <br />