Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Rowe clarified several items. He believed there was some misunderstanding. <br />He pointed out that Parcels C and D, which IVlr. Hahner was referring to, are strips of <br />land that were on the plan from day one. They have been incorporated and are portions <br />of landscape parcels that will be dedicated to the City to be maintained by the <br />homeowners association. He believed the land Mr. Hahner was referring to was the <br />dedication o£fight-o£-way in the realigned Vineyard Road. The bottom line is that these <br />are contractual differences of opinion which he believed should not be aired and Council <br />need not make any decision concerning these contractual issues. If it comes to it, it <br />should be a decision that is made by the courts. He asked Council for a timely approval <br />of a modification that would go into effect when they take title to the property. In their <br />opinion, they believed Mr. Hahner should not have any objection to that request. What is <br />important for them, and hopefully for the City as well, is to get this approved tonight in <br />order to meet the contractual obligations to Mr. Hahner and in turn start building out in <br />the Vineyard Corridor. <br /> <br />Ms. Ayala asked if Mr. Hahner would sign offon the final map. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rowe informed her that he would have to sign the final map and if chose not <br />to, it would then be a matter for the courts to decide. <br /> <br />Ms. Ayala asked Mr. Rowe if two more weeks would solve the problem? <br /> <br /> Mr. Rowe stated that two more weeks would not solve the problem. He noted <br />that they went to mediation and it did not solve any problems. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hahner referred to the two strips of land and noted that together they add up <br />to 2.70 acres, which does not include the taking for the new Vineyard Avenue. He <br />believed that the acreage had a value of $649,000 per acre. He encouraged Council to <br />study this. He was aware there is a great urgency to stampede through this process and to <br />move forward. He was also aware that the City was committed to the road development <br />until it is compensated by development. He believed there are a number of issues where <br />the City has an interest that parallels Mardel1, LLC. He requested Council to consider not <br />voting in the affirmative on this matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift poimed out that the PUD before Council this evening is identical to the <br />one that was originally approved for this project. The only difference is that rather than <br />several small parcels being owned by a homeowners association, they are now being <br />proposed to be dedicated to the City and to be maintained by a maintenance association <br />so that the maintenance of those will not change from what was originally approved, only <br />the underlying ownership. He mentioned the issues with respect to the new Vineyard <br />Avenue are identical to the original PUD conditions of approval; however, he noted that <br />if the final map is approved, those roads will be dedicated exactly the same as in the <br />original PUD. The only real, significant change before Council is that the house designs <br />will be the house designs as identified on the easels rather than the ones originally <br />approved. He indicated that all of the conditions of the PUD, other than others that are <br />no longer applicable, such as conditional use permits for second units, are the same. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 16 10/07/03 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />