CCMIN031505 - Laserfiche WebLink

Sycamore Funding Development Company to agree to provide for one-half of the cost of the read. He believed the Bachs have been honest and that their share of the improvements have been equal with regard to the cost of the road. He is willing to continue to be flexible with the project and use the Council as an objective body. If Council feels that there is some contrary evidence, he is willing to make adjustments to the pathway. He was uncertain why there needed to be a three-foot bow in the pathway away from the Bozorgzads' property. If the pathway is moved three-feet it will allow Mr. Bozorgzad to build his solid privacy wall over the existing water line that he placed at this location. He noted that there are substantial costs associated with moving the water line and based on the history of the project and documentation, it would not be an appropriate cost that he or the Bachs should bear. In response to a question of clarification, Mr. Lamb said he would pay for the costs associated with extending the Bozorgzads' privacy wall/fence if that is the will of the Council. He concurred with staff's opinion that the cost of the pathway is the responsibility of the Bachs and Lambs. If Council directed staff to explore safety mitigation options for the path, Mr. Sullivan asked Mr. Lamb if he would be open to it. Mr. Lamb said yes. Mayor Hosterman closed the public hearing. -- Mayor Hosterman noted that Council had three options to consider: (1) to make a decision to allow a four-lot development plan for three new homes; (2) whether or not to approve an amendment to the North Sycamore Specific Plan to consider eliminating a public sidewalk connection; and (3) if it was determined not to eliminate the public sidewalk connection, Council needed to make a decision as to the feasibility of maintaining ADA standards. Mr. Iserson said that Council would not have to take a separate action with respect to the ADA findings if it decided to retain the sidewalk as it is built into the PUD development findings. Mr. Sullivan noted that he was on the Planning Commission when the Bozorgzads' PUD was submitted for consideration. There was significant discussion at that time about this path. He recalled that when the PUD first came before the Planning Commission, the path was actually straddling the Bozorgzads' and the Bachs' properties and during the Planning Commission public hearing for the PUD application, the path was moved to the Bach property. Mr. Iserson believed that Mr. Sullivan was correct because the Specific Plan designated the pathway on the common property line and it was through negotiations that the pathway was pushed over on the northern section to the Bachs' side. Ms. McGovern recalled that there are many of these pathways throughout the City. She believed that this issue not only pertained to this section of town. Mr. Iserson said that is correct. Pleasanton City Council 10 03/15/05 Minutes