CCMIN100703 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Campbell inquired as to whether Council had to take any action tonight. Mr. Roush stated that technically it did not, and the item could be continued if they needed more time to study the issue. He pointed out that there is another item on the October 21 agenda with respect to the final map on this project. The concern expressed to us bom Mardell, LLC is the fact that in their contract with the Hahners there is a closing date of early November. They are concerned in trying to get all of the items that Council needs to take action on accomplished as early as possible. He indicated that staff's position would not change with respect to its recommendation if it came back to Council within two weeks. Mr. Campbell's recollection was that when someone requested a continuance, Council tended to grant it. Ms. Ayala stated that if she had any sense that we would be any further within two weeks than we are this evening, she would go along with it. What she believed staff is saying is that there is no more we can do to facilitate the problem that exists between the developer and the landowner and it will eventually be a decision of the courts. Mr. Roush believed it was fair to say that if Mr. Hahner felt the application was not appropriate or if he does not sign the final map, that will trigger some legal action between Mardell, LLC and Hahner and how that comes out, he was not certain. He believed staff's position is that his interest is protected in the sense that if the transfer does not occur, then these PUD modifications will not go into effect and he will be in no different position than he is tonight. Ms. Ayala stated that she did not feel the development plan was the problem. A part of her believed that if we go ahead and approve this, at least we would have a solution faster. Ms. Hosterman concurred with Ms. Ayala's comments. In going over the staff report, she believed this is a policy issue having to do with a major modification of a PUD that has already been approved. In looking at the items, which appear to be cleanup items, and based on the decision of the Planning Commission and the minutes, she believed that Mr. Hahner is in for a fight. She was not sure there was anything they could do to help him. She stated that she is favoring going with the Planning Commission recommendations at this point. It was moved by Ms. Hosterman to approve staff's recommendations with the Planning Commission's recommendations. Ms. Ayala stated that she would like to support this without Condition 43 and proposed a friendly amendment. Instead of saying the Green Building Measures shall total 50 points, she would like to use the same building measures previously approved in the Heinz development with a goal of trying to reach 50 points. Pleasanton City Council 17 10/07/03 Minutes